Predictive Models for Breast Cancer Susceptibility from Multiple Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hereditary predisposition and causative environmental exposures have long been recognized in human malignancies. In most instances, cancer cases occur sporadically, suggesting that environmental influences are critical in determining cancer risk. To test the influence of genetic polymorphisms on breast cancer risk, we have measured 98 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) distributed over 45 genes of potential relevance to breast cancer etiology in 174 patients and have compared these with matched normal controls. Using machine learning techniques such as support vector machines (SVMs), decision trees, and naïve Bayes, we identified a subset of three SNPs as key discriminators between breast cancer and controls. The SVMs performed maximally among predictive models, achieving 69% predictive power in distinguishing between the two groups, compared with a 50% baseline predictive power obtained from the data after repeated random permutation of class labels (individuals with cancer or controls). However, the simpler naïve Bayes model as well as the decision tree model performed quite similarly to the SVM. The three SNP sites most useful in this model were (a) the +4536T/C site of the aldosterone synthase gene CYP11B2 at amino acid residue 386 Val/Ala (T/C) (rs4541); (b) the +4328C/G site of the aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase CYP1B1 at amino acid residue 293 Leu/Val (C/G) (rs5292); and (c) the +4449C/T site of the transcription factor BCL6 at amino acid 387 Asp/Asp (rs1056932). No single SNP site on its own could achieve more than 60% in predictive accuracy. We have shown that multiple SNP sites from different genes over distant parts of the genome are better at identifying breast cancer patients than any one SNP alone. As high-throughput technology for SNPs improves and as more SNPs are identified, it is likely that much higher predictive accuracy will be achieved and a useful clinical tool developed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".