AI could help us more accurately screen for breast cancer, new research

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

At least 20,000 Australian women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. And more than 3,300 die from the disease.

To save women’s lives, we need to detect breast cancer early. Breast screening, which halves women’s risk of dying from breast cancer, is key to that.

A new Australian study published today in The Lancet Digital Health suggests AI could help improve how we screen for breast cancer.

Sasun Bughdaryan/Unsplash

How do we currently screen for breast cancer?

Since 1992, Australia has offered free breast X-rays, known as mammograms, every two years to women aged between 50 and 74. Just over half of eligible women participate.

Of the women found to have cancer, about 25% are diagnosed between the biennial screens. These “interval cancers” are often aggressive and, unfortunately, more likely to be fatal.

In some cases, a more sensitive screening test may have detected them earlier.

The role of AI

Australia’s BreastScreen program was established in response to several major clinical trials conducted between the 1960s and 1980s. The screening technology used by the program has not substantially changed since then.

Researchers are now exploring risk-adjusted screening, which tailors screening to women based on their risk, as a way to detect more cancers earlier. This may include programs offering different technologies for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer.

Currently, we generally assess cancer risk via questionnaires that help identify if a woman has any risk factors associated with breast cancer.

One risk factor is breast density which refers to how much glandular tissue is in the breast. As well as being a risk factor for breast cancer, the higher a woman’s breast density, the harder it is to detect cancer on a mammogram.

We can also use one-off genetic testing to identify women with a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. This involves looking for high-risk gene mutations such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with increased breast and ovarian cancer risk. Genetic testing can also help us estimate a person’s lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

More recently, researchers have been investigating artificial intelligence (AI) as a new approach to assess breast cancer risk. A new Australian study, published in The Lancet Digital Health today, focused on a specific AI tool known as BRAIx.

What did the study involve? And what did it find?

This study used an AI tool, known as BRAIx, trained using BreastScreen Australia data to help radiologists assess mammograms.

The study assessed how well BRAIx predicted women’s risk of developing breast cancer in the next four years, among women who had a clear mammogram.

Of the 95,823 Australian women assessed, 1.1% (1,098) had developed breast cancer in the four years after they received a clear mammogram. Of the 4,430 Swedish women assessed, 6.9% had developed breast cancer within two years of a clear screen.

The study findings show that BRAIx scores were very useful for identifying women who were more likely to develop cancer one to two years after having a clear screen. Findings from the Australian dataset suggest BRAIx scores identified cancers found three to four years later, but with less accuracy.

These findings suggest BRAIx could help identify women who might benefit from additional tests. This may include an MRI (which uses a magnetic field to produce images of organs and tissue) or contrast-enhanced mammography (which uses an iodine dye to improve the visibility of a regular mammogram).

These findings reinforce a 2024 Swedish study that used an AI-based risk assessment to select women for additional testing. The researchers referred 7% of women to have a follow-up MRI, and 6.5% of were found to have cancers missed by mammograms.

Does the study have any limitations?

As with most studies, yes. Here are two.

  • it’s difficult to compare BRAIx to genetic testing. This is because BRAIx is trained to find missed or emerging cancers over a four year period. In contrast, genetic testing identifies a person’s risk of developing cancer over their lifetime
  • it might not use the best breast density data. This study found BRAIx more accurately predicts breast cancer risk compared to assessments based on breast density. But this breast density data was collected using a different tool to those used by the Breastscreen program. So this finding should be interpreted carefully.

So, where to from here?

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that AI risk assessment could help breast screening programs find cancers earlier.

BRAIx is now being trialled as part of the BreastScreen Victoria program, to help read mammograms. And other states are already using and evaluating different AI tools for reading mammograms.

So it may be time for Australia to conduct a national, independent review of these new tools. As part of a more risk-adjusted approach to breast screening, they could save lives.

Carolyn Nickson, Principal Research Fellow, Cancer Elimination Collaboration, University of Sydney; The University of Melbourne and Bruce Mann, Professor of Surgery, Specialist Breast Surgeon, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

  • What Causes Kidney Stones?
    This is one of those cases where prevention is a lot more fun than cure: This too shall pass Passing a kidney stone is usually not on most people’s lists of favorite things to do. But how and why do they form in the first place? Urine naturally contains (amongst many other things) calcium, sodium,…

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Banana vs Strawberries – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing bananas to strawberries, we picked the bananas.

    Why?

    Strawberries have their merits! But…

    In terms of macros, bananas have more fiber, carbs, and protein, making them the more nutrient-dense option in this category.

    In the category of vitamins, bananas have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B7, while strawberries have more of vitamins C, E, and K, giving bananas a 7:3 win here.

    Looking at minerals, bananas have more copper, magnesium, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while strawberries have more calcium, iron, manganese, and phosphorus, yielding bananas a marginal 5:4 victory in this round.

    In other considerations, strawberries do have more polyphenols, so that’s a point in their favor.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for bananas, though, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    7 Fruits Every Senior Should Eat Regularly (And Why)

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Do Essential Oils Really Have Medicinal Properties?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small 😎

    ❝Do essential oils really have scientific merit?❞

    ‌Great question! Assuming you mean “…for medicinal purposes” then it really depends on the oil in question.

    For example, one can probably buy a big book of essential oils from a New Age store, and a lot of claims for different oils will not have any scientific backing whatsoever.

    However! Some definitely do. For example, we wrote a little while back about ginger:

    Ginger Does A Lot More Than You Think

    Now, the active compound that gives ginger those properties and more is gingerol. Which is usually found as pure ginger oil, in other words, ginger essential oil.

    Another essential oil that definitely does have benefits is that of Boswellia serrata, commonly known as frankincense. It can be used in various forms, and the essential oil is one of them; see:

    Meanwhile, menthol, the essential oil of peppermint, has its pros and cons:

    Peppermint For Digestion & Against Nausea: How Useful Is Peppermint, Really?

    And lavender essential oil does really have a sedative effect:

    Herbs for Evidence-Based Health & Healing

    If you have a different, particular essential oil in mind, let us know, and we can do a deep-dive on it for one of our “Research Review” editions!

    A note on safety

    Essential oils are pure and undiluted extracts of what’s usually a particularly potent chemical from a plant. Two things to bear in mind about this:

    • Just because a chemical is potent, does not mean it will necessarily help you in a specific way, or indeed at all. On the contrary, many potent chemicals are simply harmful. So, be careful.
    • Essential oils being so strong means that usually only a drop or two is required for effects; consult available literature (or ask us to do that for you!), and employ good safety practices such as:
      • Do not use undiluted essential oils on your skin or internally
      • If you are going to use it internally (diluted, following instructions from a reputable source, and with your doctor’s blessing, please) then test it on your skin first at the same dilution, in case of any adverse reaction.
      • However you are using it, if you have any kind of adverse reaction, stop, and seek medical attention if it’s severe and/or it persists.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Is it safe to use cake decorating dusts and dyes? 2 experts explain

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Have you ever baked or decorated a birthday cake?

    Interest in elaborate cakes is booming, driven by social media trends and television shows such as Is It Cake?.

    This means products such as edible glitter and colourful dyes are becoming increasingly common at children’s parties and other social events.

    But a recent incident, where a young boy from Queensland was hospitalised after inhaling cake decorating powder, has raised concerns about the safety of these products.

    And authorities have now announced a nationwide recall of the product in question.

    Klaus Vedfelt/Getty

    What is ‘cake dust’?

    “Cake dust” refers to many different products used to decorate cakes. This includes edible glitter, metallic-looking powders, coloured dusts that are brushed on to decorations, and liquid colours that are sprayed on to cakes using airbrushes.

    These products are made of various substances. Some are a mixture of food colourings and sugar or starch. Some also contain pigments that give them a metallic or glitter-like appearance. These pigments may contain small amounts of aluminium, copper or zinc that, when eaten in large amounts, can be toxic to humans.

    Many also contain amorphous silicon dioxide, which helps stop powders from clumping together. This is not to be confused with crystalline silica dust, which has been shown to cause a long-term lung disease called silicosis.

    These substances aren’t inherently harmful, but can be dangerous if you are exposed to large amounts. However, how you consume them matters. For example, eating tiny amounts on the surface of a cake is very different to inhaling a concentrated cloud of fine powder.

    This is because your lungs don’t process particles in the same way as your digestive system. Fine particles can travel deep into your airways, where your body then absorbs them. These particles may irritate lung tissue or trigger inflammation in both small and large airways. They may also block airways and reduce oxygen intake.

    This can cause persistent coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. If you have any of these symptoms, or notice your lips turning blue, visit the emergency department immediately.

    ‘Non-toxic’ doesn’t mean edible

    Some cake decorating products are labelled “non-toxic” rather than “edible”. You might assume these terms are interchangeable, but they are not.

    In the recent Queensland case, the metallic cake dust was reportedly labelled “non-toxic” and intended only “for use on removable parts” of cakes. However, it was sold next to other edible cake decorating products.

    Unfortunately, this is not the first time such dusts have put people’s health at risk. Between 2018 and 2019, United States health authorities investigated multiple poisonings linked to metallic “luster dust” cake decorations. These products contained high levels of metals, including copper and zinc. The child from Queensland inhaled cake dust that also contained these metals.

    Are they more harmful to kids?

    Yes. This is because children have much smaller airways than adults, which can become blocked or irritated more easily. They also breathe more quickly relative to their body size, meaning they may inhale more potentially toxic substances at a time.

    Children are often drawn to these metallic-looking cake products because they appear to be sparkly. They are also more likely to accidentally inhale cake dusts, for example while helping decorate cakes or blowing out candles.

    In the Queensland case, the child inhaled about one tablespoon of gold cake dust before he started coughing, became unresponsive and ultimately spent days in an induced coma. It’s likely the inhaled dust entered the boy’s lungs, where it blocked his airways.

    This case shows the importance of keeping toddlers away from anything they could swallow, or that may settle in their lungs.

    It also underscores the need for more research and tighter regulation. Research should focus on what metals, pigments and fine particles are actually in cake decorating products. Companies must make labels clearer and more comprehensive, adding warnings – such as “avoid inhalation” or “keep away from children” – if appropriate. Regulators should also reconsider how these products are marketed and sold, particularly if they are commonly used around children.

    So, can I still use these products?

    Parents and keen bakers can still use cake decorating products safely, by taking some simple precautions.

    Check the label

    Always check the label on any cake decorating products, to ensure the product is edible and intended for food-related use.

    Avoid imports

    Some imported products may not meet local food safety standards, meaning their labels may be unclear or inaccurate. And it’s best to avoid buying products sold through overseas online marketplaces, as they are generally less regulated.

    Use and store them with care

    When using cake decorating products, you should always follow the directions for use and only apply small amounts in well-ventilated areas. It’s best to keep them away from children, especially if they have allergies or lung conditions such as asthma or cystic fibrosis. Remember to close or secure any open products, and store them where young children won’t reach them.

    William Alexander Donald, Professor of Chemistry, UNSW Sydney and Deborah Yates, Conjoint Professor, Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Unfuck Your Brain – by Dr. Faith Harper

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    This book takes a trauma-informed care approach, which is relatively novel in the mental health field and it’s quickly becoming the industry standard because of its effectiveness.

    The basic premise of trauma-informed care is that you had a bad experience (possibly even more than one—what a thought!) and that things that remind you of that will tend to prompt reactivity from you in a way that probably isn’t healthy. By identifying each part of that process, we can then interrupt it, much like we might with CBT (the main difference being that CBT, for all its effectiveness, tends to assume that the things that are bothering you are not true, while TIC acknowledges that they might well be, and that especially historically, they probably were).

    A word of warning: if something that triggers a trauma-based reactivity response in you is people swearing, then this book will either cure you by exposure therapy or leave you a nervous wreck, because it’s not just the title; Dr. Harper barely gets through a sentence without swearing. It’s a lot, even by this (European) reviewer’s standards (we’re a lot more relaxed about swearing over here, than people tend to be in America).

    On the other hand, something that Dr. Harper excels at is actually explaining stuff very well. So while it sometimes seems like she’s “trying too hard” style-wise in terms of being “not like other therapists”, in her defence she’s nevertheless a very good writer; she knows her stuff, and knows how to communicate it clearly.

    Bottom line: if you don’t mind a writer who swears more than 99% of soldiers, then this book is an excellent how-to guide for self-administered trauma-informed care.

    Click here to check out Unfuck Your Brain, and indeed unfuck it!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Blueberries vs Rosehips – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing blueberries to rosehips, we picked the rosehips.

    Why?

    While you may not find rosehips at the supermarket, both of these berries are absolutely things you might grow in your garden, climate-permitting. So, what’s the score?

    In terms of macros, rosehips have around 10x the fiber for 2x the carbs; that’s an easy calculation and an easy first-round win for rosehips.

    In the category of vitamins, blueberries boast more of vitamins B1 and B9, while rosehips have a lot more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B6, C, E, and K. That’s a landslide for rosehips even before we consider rosehips’ much greater margins of difference (kicking off with 80x the vitamin A, for instance, and many multiples of many of the others).

    Looking at minerals, blueberries are not higher in any minerals, while rosehips have a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc.

    In other considerations, blueberries are famously abundant in polyphenols, but rosehips are too, and have some special properties of their own (see the “learn more” section for details), so this round’s perhaps a tie, unless we want to get very subjective about it, in which case it could be swung either way.

    However we do that last round, the sum is clear: it’s an overall win for rosehips—but do by all means enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    It’s In The Hips: Rosehip’s Benefits, Inside & Out

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • People are ‘microdosing’ weight-loss drugs. A GP explains what to watch out for

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Injectable medications originally developed for the treatment of diabetes are also effective for weight loss, and have surged in popularity for this purpose around the world.

    In Australia, Ozempic is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, while Wegovy is approved for weight management. Both are formulations of the drug semaglutide, which mimics the action of the naturally occurring GLP-1 hormone on GLP-1 receptors in the gut and the brain, helping regulate appetite and making you feel fuller for longer.

    However these medications are expensive, and sometimes hard to get. They also come with side effects. For these reasons, people are taking to “microdosing” weight-loss drugs, or using less than the dose recommended by the manufacturer.

    But is this effective, and is it safe? As a GP, people are asking me these questions. Here’s what we know – and what we don’t know yet.

    MillaF/Shutterstock

    Why are people microdosing weight-loss drugs?

    Microdosing usually refers to psychedelic medication, where people take a low dose of a psychedelic drug to enhance performance, or reduce symptoms of stress and anxiety.

    However, the term is increasingly being used to describe the use of weight-loss injectables at lower-than-recommended doses.

    Three common reasons come up when I ask patients why they microdose weight-loss drugs.

    Cost: injectables used for weight loss are not covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, so patients must pay for these out-of-pocket. Costs start from A$260 per month and increase from there.

    Availability: worldwide shortages of these injectable medications have led doctors and patients to seek alternative solutions.

    Side-effects: side-effects are common, and can include nausea, vomiting, bowel habit changes and reflux. Lower doses cause fewer side-effects, which is why the recommended dosing schedule starts low and gradually builds up.

    A woman on a couch clutching her stomach.
    Weight-loss drugs can cause a range of gastrointestinal side-effects. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    How do people microdose weight-loss drugs?

    A standard dose of semaglutide is 2.4mg, but we start patients on much lower doses (0.25mg) and gradually build up to this by increasing the dose each month. This is because starting at the full dose invariably causes bad side-effects.

    Injectables come in an adjustable auto-injector pen which is twisted until the dose counter shows the prescribed dose in milligrams. There’s a click every time the dial is turned. Once the prescribed dose is showing, it’s injected under the skin.

    To microdose, patients simply turn the dial fewer times than recommended for the full dose. They estimate a microdose by “counting clicks”, which means they’re turning it according to the clicks they hear rather than until they see the dial showing the correct dose has been reached.

    A person preparing a semaglutide injection.
    Weight-loss drugs come in an adjustable auto-injector pen. myskin/Shutterstock

    Alternatively, they may inject the full recommended dose but do so less often than once per week.

    Is it safe?

    Using injectables in this way has not been researched, so the safety has not been established. However, it’s unlikely lower doses would lead to higher safety concerns.

    In fact, logically, lower doses are likely to mean fewer side-effects.

    But these drugs do expire after a few weeks, and microdosing could increase the risk of inadvertently using them after their expiration date. Injecting out-of-date medication can be a significant health risk. For example, it could cause infection if bacteria has started to grow.

    The biggest concern around the safety of microdosing is if patients are doing it without the knowledge of their treating team (such as their GP, dietitian and pharmacist).

    Because there are no clear guidelines around microdosing, patients should only try it with caution and under medical care. Their team can assist with issues such as accounting for the limited shelf-life of the medication.

    Is it effective?

    As lower doses than recommended for weight loss have not been tested, we cannot answer this question yet. However, reduced side-effects at lower doses make it likely there are also reduced therapeutic effects.

    In my experience there’s a reason patients increase their doses as recommended: they simply don’t lose enough weight on the starting doses.

    A man talks to a female doctor.
    It’s best to seek advice from your medical team before making any dose changes. AnnaStills/Shutterstock

    At the height of semaglutide shortages in 2023, experts from the American Diabetes Association published recommendations around how to prescribe lower doses for patients with diabetes. But these recommendations were for diabetes management, not for patients using the drug for weight loss.

    It’s also important to note that for patients using Wegovy to reduce heart attack and stroke risk – which Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration recently approved it for – there’s no evidence that cardiovascular benefits will be achieved at lower-than-recommended doses.

    Is there any role for microdosing weight-loss drugs?

    There may be a role for microdosing in a few scenarios:

    When side-effects are not manageable: when side-effects are intolerable for patients, even on the lowest introductory dose, there may be a role for individualised approaches. But this is best done with clear communication and regular monitoring, so patients are not under-treated.

    Supply disruption: if there’s a supply disruption, lowering the dose or lengthening the time between doses may be preferable to ceasing the medication altogether.

    Maintenance of weight loss: once therapeutic levels have helped patients achieve their goal weight, lowering the dose may be a helpful longer-term way of keeping them there. We know stopping these drugs altogether results in rebound weight gain. We await evidence for microdosing for weight maintenance.

    So what’s the take-home message?

    Patients who use injectables as part of their approach to weight loss should be under the care of an experienced team, including a GP, who can monitor their progress and ensure they achieve their weight loss in a safe and sustainable way.

    Microdosing weight-loss drugs currently has no clear evidence base, but if a person wants to attempt it, they should do so with the full knowledge of their treating team.

    Natasha Yates wishes to thank Dr Terri-Lynne South – a GP, dietician, and the chair of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ specific interest group in obesity management – for providing feedback and peer review on this article.

    Natasha Yates, General Practitioner, PhD Candidate, Bond University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: