Family history of cancer and childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the Children's Oncology Group and the Utah Population Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatively little is known about the epidemiology and factors underlying susceptibility to childhood rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). To better characterize genetic susceptibility to childhood RMS, we evaluated the role of family history of cancer using data from the largest case-control study of RMS and the Utah Population Database (UPDB). RMS cases (n = 322) were obtained from the Children's Oncology Group (COG). Population-based controls (n = 322) were pair-matched to cases on race, sex, and age. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between family history of cancer and childhood RMS. The results were validated using the UPDB, from which 130 RMS cases were identified and matched to controls (n = 1300) on sex and year of birth. The results were combined to generate summary odds ratios (OR(s) ) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Having a first-degree relative with a cancer history was more common in RMS cases than controls (OR(s) = 1.39, 95% CI: 0.97-1.98). Notably, this association was stronger among those with embryonal RMS (OR(s) = 2.44, 95% CI: 1.54-3.86). Moreover, having a first-degree relative who was younger at diagnosis of cancer (<30 years) was associated with a greater risk of RMS (OR(s) = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.34-4.18). In the largest analysis of its kind, we found that most children diagnosed with RMS did not have a family history of cancer. However, our results indicate an increased risk of RMS (particularly embryonal RMS) in children who have a first-degree relative with cancer, and among those whose relatives were diagnosed with cancer at <30 years of age.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".