ArticleInternational journal of breast cancer2026
Agreement Among Breast Cancer Screening Modalities in Breast Density Assessment and Cancer Risk Prediction.
Article in International journal of breast cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Agreement Among Breast Cancer Screening Modalities in Breast Density Assessment and Cancer Risk Prediction.International journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast density is increasingly recognized as a vital risk factor that affects early breast cancer detection. Therefore, this study was aimed at evaluating the agreement between different breast density measurements across multiple imaging modalities and identifying the best breast cancer predictor among these methods. Methods: Data for women over 30 years old who underwent mammography, synthetic mammography of digital breast tomosynthesis (SM-DBT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were collected. Breast density was assessed by two breast radiologists using the American College of Radiology (ACR) categories and the visual analog scale (VAS) for percentage density (%PD). The agreement was calculated using the kappa coefficient ( Results: Among 77 women (mean age 47.34 years), 25 had breast cancer. Categorical breast density assessments showed the highest agreement between mammography and SM-DBT ( Conclusion: The results suggest notable variability in radiologists' breast density assessment across different imaging modalities. MRI showed a greater ability to identify dense breast tissue and demonstrated potential value in breast cancer risk prediction, although these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited sample size. Establishing standardized approaches to breast density assessment remains important to improve the accuracy of breast cancer screening and risk prediction, and further research with larger cohorts is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.