Identifying factors that indicate the possibility of non-visible cases on mammograms using mammary gland content ratio estimated by artificial intelligence

Mammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography alone with no or benign findings on mammography (hereby referred to as non-visibles). Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors that indicate the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in oncology Vol. 14; p. 1255109
Main Authors Kai, Chiharu, Otsuka, Tsunehiro, Nara, Miyako, Kondo, Satoshi, Futamura, Hitoshi, Kodama, Naoki, Kasai, Satoshi
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 05.03.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2234-943X
2234-943X
DOI10.3389/fonc.2024.1255109

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Mammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography alone with no or benign findings on mammography (hereby referred to as non-visibles). Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles based on the mammary gland content ratio estimated using artificial intelligence (AI) by patient age and compressed breast thickness (CBT). We used AI previously developed by us to estimate the mammary gland content ratio and quantitatively analyze 26,232 controls and 150 non-visibles. First, we evaluated divergence trends between controls and non-visibles based on the average estimated mammary gland content ratio to ensure the importance of analysis by age and CBT. Next, we evaluated the possibility that mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups affect the divergence between controls and non-visibles to specifically identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles. The images were classified into two groups for the estimated mammary gland content ratios with a threshold of 50%, and logistic regression analysis was performed between controls and non-visibles. The average estimated mammary gland content ratio was significantly higher in non-visibles than in controls when the overall sample, the patient age was ≥40 years and the CBT was ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The differences in the average estimated mammary gland content ratios in the controls and non-visibles for the overall sample was 7.54%, the differences in patients aged 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 years were 6.20%, 7.48%, and 4.78%, respectively, and the differences in those with a CBT of 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 mm were 6.67%, 9.71%, and 16.13%, respectively. In evaluating mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups, we also found positive correlations for non-visibles when controls were used as the baseline for the overall sample, in patients aged 40-59 years, and in those with a CBT ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The corresponding odds ratios were ≥2.20, with a maximum value of 4.36. The study findings highlight an estimated mammary gland content ratio of ≥50% in patients aged 40-59 years or in those with ≥40 mm CBT could be indicative factors for non-visibles.
AbstractList Mammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography alone with no or benign findings on mammography (hereby referred to as non-visibles). Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles based on the mammary gland content ratio estimated using artificial intelligence (AI) by patient age and compressed breast thickness (CBT).BackgroundMammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography alone with no or benign findings on mammography (hereby referred to as non-visibles). Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles based on the mammary gland content ratio estimated using artificial intelligence (AI) by patient age and compressed breast thickness (CBT).We used AI previously developed by us to estimate the mammary gland content ratio and quantitatively analyze 26,232 controls and 150 non-visibles. First, we evaluated divergence trends between controls and non-visibles based on the average estimated mammary gland content ratio to ensure the importance of analysis by age and CBT. Next, we evaluated the possibility that mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups affect the divergence between controls and non-visibles to specifically identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles. The images were classified into two groups for the estimated mammary gland content ratios with a threshold of 50%, and logistic regression analysis was performed between controls and non-visibles.MethodsWe used AI previously developed by us to estimate the mammary gland content ratio and quantitatively analyze 26,232 controls and 150 non-visibles. First, we evaluated divergence trends between controls and non-visibles based on the average estimated mammary gland content ratio to ensure the importance of analysis by age and CBT. Next, we evaluated the possibility that mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups affect the divergence between controls and non-visibles to specifically identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles. The images were classified into two groups for the estimated mammary gland content ratios with a threshold of 50%, and logistic regression analysis was performed between controls and non-visibles.The average estimated mammary gland content ratio was significantly higher in non-visibles than in controls when the overall sample, the patient age was ≥40 years and the CBT was ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The differences in the average estimated mammary gland content ratios in the controls and non-visibles for the overall sample was 7.54%, the differences in patients aged 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 years were 6.20%, 7.48%, and 4.78%, respectively, and the differences in those with a CBT of 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 mm were 6.67%, 9.71%, and 16.13%, respectively. In evaluating mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups, we also found positive correlations for non-visibles when controls were used as the baseline for the overall sample, in patients aged 40-59 years, and in those with a CBT ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The corresponding odds ratios were ≥2.20, with a maximum value of 4.36.ResultsThe average estimated mammary gland content ratio was significantly higher in non-visibles than in controls when the overall sample, the patient age was ≥40 years and the CBT was ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The differences in the average estimated mammary gland content ratios in the controls and non-visibles for the overall sample was 7.54%, the differences in patients aged 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 years were 6.20%, 7.48%, and 4.78%, respectively, and the differences in those with a CBT of 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 mm were 6.67%, 9.71%, and 16.13%, respectively. In evaluating mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups, we also found positive correlations for non-visibles when controls were used as the baseline for the overall sample, in patients aged 40-59 years, and in those with a CBT ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The corresponding odds ratios were ≥2.20, with a maximum value of 4.36.The study findings highlight an estimated mammary gland content ratio of ≥50% in patients aged 40-59 years or in those with ≥40 mm CBT could be indicative factors for non-visibles.ConclusionThe study findings highlight an estimated mammary gland content ratio of ≥50% in patients aged 40-59 years or in those with ≥40 mm CBT could be indicative factors for non-visibles.
BackgroundMammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography alone with no or benign findings on mammography (hereby referred to as non-visibles). Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles based on the mammary gland content ratio estimated using artificial intelligence (AI) by patient age and compressed breast thickness (CBT).MethodsWe used AI previously developed by us to estimate the mammary gland content ratio and quantitatively analyze 26,232 controls and 150 non-visibles. First, we evaluated divergence trends between controls and non-visibles based on the average estimated mammary gland content ratio to ensure the importance of analysis by age and CBT. Next, we evaluated the possibility that mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups affect the divergence between controls and non-visibles to specifically identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles. The images were classified into two groups for the estimated mammary gland content ratios with a threshold of 50%, and logistic regression analysis was performed between controls and non-visibles.ResultsThe average estimated mammary gland content ratio was significantly higher in non-visibles than in controls when the overall sample, the patient age was ≥40 years and the CBT was ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The differences in the average estimated mammary gland content ratios in the controls and non-visibles for the overall sample was 7.54%, the differences in patients aged 40–49, 50–59, and ≥60 years were 6.20%, 7.48%, and 4.78%, respectively, and the differences in those with a CBT of 40–49, 50–59, and ≥60 mm were 6.67%, 9.71%, and 16.13%, respectively. In evaluating mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups, we also found positive correlations for non-visibles when controls were used as the baseline for the overall sample, in patients aged 40–59 years, and in those with a CBT ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The corresponding odds ratios were ≥2.20, with a maximum value of 4.36.ConclusionThe study findings highlight an estimated mammary gland content ratio of ≥50% in patients aged 40–59 years or in those with ≥40 mm CBT could be indicative factors for non-visibles.
Mammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography alone with no or benign findings on mammography (hereby referred to as non-visibles). Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles based on the mammary gland content ratio estimated using artificial intelligence (AI) by patient age and compressed breast thickness (CBT). We used AI previously developed by us to estimate the mammary gland content ratio and quantitatively analyze 26,232 controls and 150 non-visibles. First, we evaluated divergence trends between controls and non-visibles based on the average estimated mammary gland content ratio to ensure the importance of analysis by age and CBT. Next, we evaluated the possibility that mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups affect the divergence between controls and non-visibles to specifically identify factors that indicate the possibility of non-visibles. The images were classified into two groups for the estimated mammary gland content ratios with a threshold of 50%, and logistic regression analysis was performed between controls and non-visibles. The average estimated mammary gland content ratio was significantly higher in non-visibles than in controls when the overall sample, the patient age was ≥40 years and the CBT was ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The differences in the average estimated mammary gland content ratios in the controls and non-visibles for the overall sample was 7.54%, the differences in patients aged 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 years were 6.20%, 7.48%, and 4.78%, respectively, and the differences in those with a CBT of 40-49, 50-59, and ≥60 mm were 6.67%, 9.71%, and 16.13%, respectively. In evaluating mammary gland content ratio ≥50% groups, we also found positive correlations for non-visibles when controls were used as the baseline for the overall sample, in patients aged 40-59 years, and in those with a CBT ≥40 mm (p < 0.05). The corresponding odds ratios were ≥2.20, with a maximum value of 4.36. The study findings highlight an estimated mammary gland content ratio of ≥50% in patients aged 40-59 years or in those with ≥40 mm CBT could be indicative factors for non-visibles.
Author Kai, Chiharu
Nara, Miyako
Futamura, Hitoshi
Kondo, Satoshi
Otsuka, Tsunehiro
Kasai, Satoshi
Kodama, Naoki
AuthorAffiliation 3 Otsuka Breastcare Clinic , Tokyo , Japan
2 Major in Health and Welfare, Graduate School of Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata , Niigata , Japan
1 Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata , Niigata , Japan
4 Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center, Komagome Hospital , Tokyo , Japan
5 Graduate School of Engineering, Muroran Institute of Technology, Muroran , Hokkaido , Japan
6 Healthcare Business Headquarters, Konica Minolta, Inc. , Tokyo , Japan
AuthorAffiliation_xml – name: 6 Healthcare Business Headquarters, Konica Minolta, Inc. , Tokyo , Japan
– name: 2 Major in Health and Welfare, Graduate School of Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata , Niigata , Japan
– name: 3 Otsuka Breastcare Clinic , Tokyo , Japan
– name: 1 Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata , Niigata , Japan
– name: 5 Graduate School of Engineering, Muroran Institute of Technology, Muroran , Hokkaido , Japan
– name: 4 Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center, Komagome Hospital , Tokyo , Japan
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Chiharu
  surname: Kai
  fullname: Kai, Chiharu
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Tsunehiro
  surname: Otsuka
  fullname: Otsuka, Tsunehiro
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Miyako
  surname: Nara
  fullname: Nara, Miyako
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Satoshi
  surname: Kondo
  fullname: Kondo, Satoshi
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Hitoshi
  surname: Futamura
  fullname: Futamura, Hitoshi
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Naoki
  surname: Kodama
  fullname: Kodama, Naoki
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Satoshi
  surname: Kasai
  fullname: Kasai, Satoshi
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38505584$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpVUstu3CAURVWqJp3mA7qpWHbjKS_bsKqqqI-RInXTSt2ha8AOkQ1TYCLNt_RnizvTKGEDXI7OOdx7XqOLEIND6C0lW86l-jDGYLaMMLGlrG0pUS_QFWNcNErwXxdPzpfoOud7UlfXEkr4K3TJZUvaVoor9GdnXSh-PPow4RFMiSnjcgcF-2C9geLqzeF9zNkPfvbliOOIq5XmwdfK7LCB7DKOAS-wLHFKsGR8yCvdWoB0xNMMwWITQ6lSOEHxEbtc_FLZLR6OGFJ14I2HuaoWN89-csG4N-jlCHN21-d9g35--fzj5ltz-_3r7ubTbWMElaWhpu-JUoQT1fXgLKMjAG970vFRciUEE2B6OaiBd8Z2YIRh0AlgowMrpeAbtDvx2gj3ep_86lpH8PpfIaZJrw7N7LRylZG21g6DEiMMCgYu6tlRaalVbeX6eOLaH4bFWVN_nGB-Rvr8Jfg7PcUHXQcolKieN-j9mSHF34faJ734bGpTILh4yJqpnvWk7aWs0HdPxR5V_o-3AugJYFIdYHLjI4QSvaZIrynSa4r0OUX8L2fov_A
Cites_doi 10.1007/s10549-021-06340-2
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21505
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22810
10.1002/cncr.33661
10.1186/s13058-022-01545-9
10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30398-3
10.1186/s13058-021-01426-7
10.7326/M14-0692
10.2214/AJR.19.21994
10.1002/cam4.4158
10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00774-6
10.1093/aje/kws446
10.1001/jama.2023.4004
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.2420
10.1002/cncr.31840
10.1007/s12282-023-01444-7
10.1038/s41598-021-96390-9
10.1007/s12282-018-0930-0
10.3390/cancers15102794
10.1186/s13058-022-01594-0
10.1093/annonc/mdz051
10.1186/s12905-022-01772-4
10.3804/jjabcs.30.15
10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.013
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.39161
10.1186/bcr1829
10.3322/caac.21754
10.1007/s11604-022-01320-y
10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.048
10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00128-X
10.1186/s12905-022-01663-8
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2024 Kai, Otsuka, Nara, Kondo, Futamura, Kodama and Kasai.
Copyright © 2024 Kai, Otsuka, Nara, Kondo, Futamura, Kodama and Kasai 2024 Kai, Otsuka, Nara, Kondo, Futamura, Kodama and Kasai
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2024 Kai, Otsuka, Nara, Kondo, Futamura, Kodama and Kasai.
– notice: Copyright © 2024 Kai, Otsuka, Nara, Kondo, Futamura, Kodama and Kasai 2024 Kai, Otsuka, Nara, Kondo, Futamura, Kodama and Kasai
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
NPM
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2024.1255109
DatabaseName CrossRef
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic

PubMed
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 2234-943X
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_9e83915ddbb94fab9ab34bb9e18d1d95
PMC10949406
38505584
10_3389_fonc_2024_1255109
Genre Journal Article
GroupedDBID 53G
5VS
9T4
AAFWJ
AAKDD
AAYXX
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACXDI
ADBBV
ADRAZ
AFPKN
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AOIJS
BAWUL
BCNDV
CITATION
DIK
EBS
EJD
EMOBN
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
HYE
KQ8
M48
M~E
OK1
PGMZT
RNS
RPM
IPNFZ
NPM
RIG
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-1c77099030967aed21faa357063f8394424ac78b9b36cd6ac4c2a64a2fead8843
IEDL.DBID M48
ISSN 2234-943X
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 01:29:45 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 18:34:48 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 11 04:49:33 EDT 2025
Mon Jul 21 05:39:34 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 01:55:33 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Keywords breast cancer
non-visible
mammary gland content ratio
mammogram
artificial intelligence
Language English
License Copyright © 2024 Kai, Otsuka, Nara, Kondo, Futamura, Kodama and Kasai.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c418t-1c77099030967aed21faa357063f8394424ac78b9b36cd6ac4c2a64a2fead8843
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Reviewed by: Umar Mushtaq, Central University of Kashmir, India
Rubina Manuela Trimboli, IRCCS San Donato Polyclinic, Italy
Veronica Magni, University of Milan, Italy
Edited by: Paolo Giorgi Rossi, IRCCS Local Health Authority of Reggio Emilia, Italy
OpenAccessLink http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.3389/fonc.2024.1255109
PMID 38505584
PQID 2972705788
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_9e83915ddbb94fab9ab34bb9e18d1d95
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10949406
proquest_miscellaneous_2972705788
pubmed_primary_38505584
crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2024_1255109
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2024-03-05
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2024-03-05
PublicationDate_xml – month: 03
  year: 2024
  text: 2024-03-05
  day: 05
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace Switzerland
PublicationPlace_xml – name: Switzerland
PublicationTitle Frontiers in oncology
PublicationTitleAlternate Front Oncol
PublicationYear 2024
Publisher Frontiers Media S.A
Publisher_xml – name: Frontiers Media S.A
References Lokate (B14) 2013; 178
Advani (B20) 2021; 4
McCarthy (B24) 2021; 10
Ochi (B28) 2022; 22
Sprague (B33) 2015; 162
Harris (B31) 2023; 329
McCarthy (B23) 2021; 127
Oiwa (B15) 2019; 26
Reimers (B26) 2021; 23
Moss (B5) 2015; 16
Scheel (B32) 2015; 212
Destounis (B8) 2020; 214
Friebel-Klingner (B22) 2021; 189
Kim (B25) 2022; 24
Ward (B27) 2022; 24
Oiwa (B16) 2023; 30
Malvezzi (B1) 2019; 30
Tsunoda (B10) 2021; 30
Harada-Shoji (B13) 2021; 4
Duffy (B7) 2020; 21
Giaquinto (B2) 2022; 72
(B11) 2013
Kai (B17) 2023; 15
Moini (B29) 2022; 22
Nara (B19) 2023; 41
B3
Tabár (B6) 2019; 125
Hakama (B4) 2008; 44
Ohuchi (B12) 2016; 387
Tran (B21) 2021; 4
Vachon (B9) 2007; 9
Tran (B18) 2023; 6
Lee (B30) 2021; 11
References_xml – volume: 189
  year: 2021
  ident: B22
  article-title: Risk factors for breast cancer subtypes among Black women undergoing screening mammography
  publication-title: Breast Cancer Res Treat
  doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06340-2
– volume: 4
  year: 2021
  ident: B13
  article-title: Evaluation of adjunctive ultrasonography for breast cancer detection among women aged 40–49 years with varying breast density undergoing screening mammography: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial
  publication-title: JAMA Netw Open
  doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21505
– volume: 4
  year: 2021
  ident: B20
  article-title: Association of breast density with breast cancer risk among women aged 65 years or older by age group and body mass index
  publication-title: JAMA Netw Open
  doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22810
– volume: 127
  year: 2021
  ident: B23
  article-title: Risk factors for an advanced breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram
  publication-title: Cancer
  doi: 10.1002/cncr.33661
– volume: 24
  start-page: 49
  year: 2022
  ident: B27
  article-title: The association of age at menarche and adult height with mammographic density in the International Consortium of Mammographic Density
  publication-title: Breast Cancer Res
  doi: 10.1186/s13058-022-01545-9
– ident: B3
– volume: 21
  year: 2020
  ident: B7
  article-title: Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial): final results of a randomised, controlled trial
  publication-title: Lancet Oncol
  doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30398-3
– volume: 23
  start-page: 49
  year: 2021
  ident: B26
  article-title: Benign breast disease and changes in mammographic breast density
  publication-title: Breast Cancer Res
  doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01426-7
– volume: 162
  year: 2015
  ident: B33
  article-title: Benefits, harms, and cost-eff ectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts
  publication-title: Ann Intern Med
  doi: 10.7326/M14-0692
– volume: 214
  start-page: 296
  year: 2020
  ident: B8
  article-title: Update on breast density, risk estimation, and supplemental screening
  publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol
  doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21994
– volume: 10
  year: 2021
  ident: B24
  article-title: Relationship of established risk factors with breast cancer subtypes
  publication-title: Cancer Med
  doi: 10.1002/cam4.4158
– volume: 387
  year: 2016
  ident: B12
  article-title: J-START investigator groups. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anticancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomized controlled trial
  publication-title: Lancet
  doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00774-6
– volume: 178
  year: 2013
  ident: B14
  article-title: Age-related changes in mammographic density and breast cancer risk
  publication-title: Am J Epidemiol
  doi: 10.1093/aje/kws446
– volume: 329
  year: 2023
  ident: B31
  article-title: FDA Updates breast density reporting standards, other mammogram rules
  publication-title: JAMA
  doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.4004
– volume-title: ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System
  year: 2013
  ident: B11
– volume: 6
  start-page: e232420
  year: 2023
  ident: B18
  article-title: Association of breast cancer family history with breast density over time in Korean women
  publication-title: JAMA Netw Open
  doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.2420
– volume: 125
  year: 2019
  ident: B6
  article-title: The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening
  publication-title: Cancer
  doi: 10.1002/cncr.31840
– volume: 30
  year: 2023
  ident: B16
  article-title: Validity of computed mean compressed fibroglandular tissue thickness and breast composition for stratification of masking risk in Japanese women
  publication-title: Breast Cancer
  doi: 10.1007/s12282-023-01444-7
– volume: 11
  start-page: 16785
  year: 2021
  ident: B30
  article-title: Association between skeletal muscle mass and mammographic breast density
  publication-title: Sci Rep
  doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96390-9
– volume: 26
  year: 2019
  ident: B15
  article-title: Can quantitative evaluation of mammographic breast density, “volumetric measurement”, predict the masking risk with dense breast tissue? Investigation by comparison with subjective visual estimation by Japanese radiologists
  publication-title: Breast Cancer
  doi: 10.1007/s12282-018-0930-0
– volume: 15
  year: 2023
  ident: B17
  article-title: Automated estimation of mammary gland content ratio using regression deep convolutional neural network and the effectiveness in clinical practice as explainable artificial intelligence
  publication-title: Cancers
  doi: 10.3390/cancers15102794
– volume: 24
  start-page: 96
  year: 2022
  ident: B25
  article-title: Microcalcifications, mammographic breast density, and risk of breast cancer: a cohort study
  publication-title: Breast Cancer Res
  doi: 10.1186/s13058-022-01594-0
– volume: 30
  year: 2019
  ident: B1
  article-title: European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2019 with focus on breast cancer
  publication-title: Ann Oncol
  doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz051
– volume: 22
  start-page: 194
  year: 2022
  ident: B28
  article-title: Impact of childbirth history on dense breast in mammographic screening: a cross-sectional study
  publication-title: BMC Womens Health
  doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01772-4
– volume: 30
  year: 2021
  ident: B10
  article-title: Current status on evaluation of breast composition
  publication-title: JJpn Assoc.Breast Cancer Screen
  doi: 10.3804/jjabcs.30.15
– volume: 44
  year: 2008
  ident: B4
  article-title: Cancer screening: evidence and practice in Europe 2008
  publication-title: Eur J Cancer
  doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.013
– volume: 4
  year: 2021
  ident: B21
  article-title: Association of the interaction between mammographic breast density, body mass index, and menopausal status with breast cancer risk among Korean women
  publication-title: JAMA Netw Open
  doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.39161
– volume: 9
  start-page: 217
  year: 2007
  ident: B9
  article-title: Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction
  publication-title: Breast Cancer Res
  doi: 10.1186/bcr1829
– volume: 72
  year: 2022
  ident: B2
  article-title: Breast cancer statistics, 2022
  publication-title: CA Cancer J Clin
  doi: 10.3322/caac.21754
– volume: 41
  start-page: 54
  year: 2023
  ident: B19
  article-title: Prediction of breast cancer risk by automated volumetric breast density measurement
  publication-title: Jpn J Radiol
  doi: 10.1007/s11604-022-01320-y
– volume: 212
  start-page: 9
  year: 2015
  ident: B32
  article-title: Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.048
– volume: 16
  year: 2015
  ident: B5
  article-title: Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial
  publication-title: Lancet Oncol
  doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00128-X
– volume: 22
  start-page: 81
  year: 2022
  ident: B29
  article-title: Evaluation of the association of endometriosis and mammographic breast density, a cross-sectional study
  publication-title: BMC Womens Health
  doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01663-8
SSID ssj0000650103
Score 2.3372777
Snippet Mammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography alone with...
BackgroundMammography is the modality of choice for breast cancer screening. However, some cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed through ultrasonography...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 1255109
SubjectTerms artificial intelligence
breast cancer
mammary gland content ratio
mammogram
non-visible
Oncology
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1La9wwEBYlh9BLadOX06ZMoKeCm1iWbenYhoRQSE5d2JvQs7vQ2iHrHPa35M92RnKCtxR66cmvxdZqZj3f7Hz6hrGPlp_KIOtYYjhpSuFaUZrTEErZeCF44D5G-mvg6rq9XIhvy2Y5a_VFnLAsD5wn7kThnVTVeG-tEtFYZWwtcD9U0ldeJfVSjHmzZCq_gxtqYJDLmJiFqZM49KRYyMVnDOlNIiDOAlHS6_8byPyTKzkLPhfP2bMJNcKXPNoX7EnoD9j-1VQXf8nu83rbtGYJphY6MK7MCFSSJtITHgW4GTYTG3YLQwTM_EtaW25_BnAYzTYw9PDLoGcSZWsDxIn_kU6Y2y2kZh9A1HZ8FCTHAZLoQMgbPNgt0FxmPQpYz4Q-X7HFxfn3s8tyartQOlHJsaxc11G5rMbspjPB8yoaUzcdgpkoaR0tF8Z10ipbt863xgnHTSsMj-iVUor6NdvDLxDeMjBKdp3F-Y6VFUo6FU1UonK4ISm5umCfHmygb7K6hsashAymyWCaDKYngxXsK1np8YMkjJ1OoLvoyV30v9ylYMcPNtb4Q6LqiOnDcLfRXCGUQ_QqZcHeZJs_PqqWCBQRqhVM7njDzlh2r_TrVRLrxoELhajp8H-M_h17SjOSOHDNe7Y33t6FIwRFo_2Q_P83tbQQ1g
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
Title Identifying factors that indicate the possibility of non-visible cases on mammograms using mammary gland content ratio estimated by artificial intelligence
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38505584
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2972705788
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC10949406
https://doaj.org/article/9e83915ddbb94fab9ab34bb9e18d1d95
Volume 14
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1La9wwEBZpCqWX0vTpPsIUeioojSXZlg4htKFpKGxPXdibkWQpCaR2unag-1v6Zzsje0O27KEXv1nZnk87nzyjbxh778ShDlpGju6k4MqXitvDELguGqVEEE2M9Glg9r08m6tvi2Kxw9blraYX2G8d2lE9qfny6uD3r9UxdvgjGnGiv_0Yu5bECIU6QG-NGDP32H10TBX109nE9sc_5oKqGlC5OSEVN0ouxjjn9l_Z8FRJ0H8bC_03mfKOdzp9zB5NtBI-jTjYYzuhfcIezKbA-VP2Z5yQmyY1wVRjB4YLOwDFrCkrCvcCXHf9lC67gi5C27WcJp-7qwAe3V0PXQs_LUKXcrp6oKT583TALleQqoEA5b5jU5CQBaThgZw4NOBWQCgdBSvg8o4S6DM2P_3y4-SMT3UZuFe5Hnjuq4riaRKHP5UNjcijtbKokO1ETRNthbK-0s44WfqmtF55YUtlRUTYaq3kc7aLDxBeMrBGV5XD9x1zp4z2JtpoVO5xRVpzMmMf1jaor0f5jRqHLWSwmgxWk8HqyWAZ-0xWur2QlLPTgW55Xk8dsTaITJMXTeOcUdE6Y51UuB1y3eSNKTL2bm3jGnsahU9sG7qbvhYGuR7SW60z9mK0-W1TUiOTRC6XMb2Bho172TzTXl4kNW-8cWWQVr36j4Zfs4f0wCkHrnjDdoflTXiLpGhw--ljAi6_LvL9BPu_TDMQmw
linkProvider Scholars Portal
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Identifying+factors+that+indicate+the+possibility+of+non-visible+cases+on+mammograms+using+mammary+gland+content+ratio+estimated+by+artificial+intelligence&rft.jtitle=Frontiers+in+oncology&rft.au=Kai%2C+Chiharu&rft.au=Otsuka%2C+Tsunehiro&rft.au=Nara%2C+Miyako&rft.au=Kondo%2C+Satoshi&rft.date=2024-03-05&rft.issn=2234-943X&rft.eissn=2234-943X&rft.volume=14&rft.spage=1255109&rft_id=info:doi/10.3389%2Ffonc.2024.1255109&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2234-943X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2234-943X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2234-943X&client=summon