MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992539804 · doi:10.1136/jmg.2005.032441

MELPREDICT: a logistic regression model to estimate CDKN2A carrier probability

2005· article· en· W1992539804 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristin B. Niendorf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteAmerican Skin AssociationNational Institutes of HealthDermatology Foundation
KeywordsCDKN2AProbandLogistic regressionGermline mutationConfidence intervalStatisticsReceiver operating characteristicPenetranceMutationMedicineGeneticsInternal medicineCancerMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heritable alterations in CDKN2A account for a subset of familial melanoma cases although no robust method exists to identify those at risk of being a mutation carrier. METHODS: We set out to construct a model for estimating CDKN2A mutation carrier probability using a cohort of 116 consecutive familial cutaneous melanoma patients evaluated at Massachusetts General Hospital Pigmented Lesion Center between April 2001 and September 2004. Germline CDKN2A and CDK4 status on the familial melanoma cases and clinical features associated with mutational status were then used to build a multiple logistic regression model to predict carrier probability and performance of model on external validation. RESULTS: From the 116 kindreds prone to melanoma in the Boston area, 13 CDKN2A mutation carriers were identified and 12 were subsequently used in the modeling. Proband age at diagnosis, number of proband primaries, and number of additional family primaries were most closely associated with germline mutations. The estimated probability of the proband being a mutation carrier based on the logistic regression model (MELPREDICT) is given by e(L)/(1 + e(L) where L = 1.99+[0.92x(no. of proband primaries)]+[0.74x(no. of additional family primaries)]-[2.11xln(age)]. The mean estimated probabilities for subjects in the Boston dataset were 55.4% and 5.1% for the mutation carriers and non-carriers respectively. In a receiver operator characteristic analysis, the area under the curve was 0.881 (95% confidence interval 0.739 to 1.000) for the Boston model set (n = 116) and 0.803 (0.729 to 0.877) for an external Toronto hereditary melanoma cohort (n = 143). CONCLUSIONS: These results represent the first-iteration logistic regression model to approximate CDKN2A carrier probability. Validation of this model with an external dataset revealed relatively robust performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207