Assessing Incremental Value of Biomarkers with Multi-phase Nested Case-control Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate risk prediction models are needed to identify different risk groups for individualized prevention and treatment strategies. In the Nurses' Health Study, to examine the effects of several biomarkers and genetic markers on the risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a three-phase nested case-control (NCC) design was conducted, in which two sequential NCC subcohorts were formed with one nested within the other, and one set of new markers measured on each of the subcohorts. One objective of the study is to evaluate clinical values of novel biomarkers in improving upon existing risk models because of potential cost associated with assaying biomarkers. In this paper, we develop robust statistical procedures for constructing risk prediction models for RA and estimating the incremental value (IncV) of new markers based on three-phase NCC studies. Our method also takes into account possible time-varying effects of biomarkers in risk modeling, which allows us to more robustly assess the biomarker utility and address the question of whether a marker is better suited for short-term or long-term risk prediction. The proposed procedures are shown to perform well in finite samples via simulation studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".