Quantifying Maternal and Paternal Disease History Using Log-Rank Score with an Application to a National Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both maternal and paternal disease history can be important predictors of the risk of common conditions such as heart disease or cancer because of shared environmental and genetic risk factors. Sometimes maternal and paternal history can have remarkably different effects on offspring's status. The results are often affected by how the maternal and paternal disease histories are quantified. We proposed using the log-rank score (LRS) to investigate the separate effect of maternal and paternal history on diseases, which takes parental disease status and the age of their disease onset into account. Through simulation studies, we compared the performance of the maternal and paternal LRS with simple binary indicators under two different mechanisms of unbalanced parental effects. We applied the LRS to a national cohort study to further segregate family risks for heart diseases. We demonstrated using the LRS rather than binary indicators can improve the prediction of disease risks and better discriminate the paternal and maternal histories. In the real study, we found that the risk for stroke is closely related with maternal history but not with paternal history and that maternal and paternal disease history have similar impact on the onset of myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.027 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".