Assessment of biomarkers for risk prediction with nested case–control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate risk prediction plays a key role in disease prevention and disease management; emergence of new biomarkers may lead to an important question about how much improvement in prediction accuracy it would achieve by adding the new markers into the existing risk prediction tools. PURPOSE: In large prospective cohort studies, the standard full-cohort design, requiring marker measurement on the entire cohort, may be infeasible due to cost and low rate of the clinical condition of interest. To overcome such difficulties, nested case-control (NCC) studies provide cost-effective alternatives but bring about challenges in statistical analyses due to complex data sets generated. METHODS: To evaluate prognostic accuracy of a risk model, Cai and Zheng proposed a class of nonparametric inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimators for accuracy measures in the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. To accommodate a three-phase NCC design in Nurses' Health Study, we extend the double IPW estimators of Cai and Zheng to develop risk prediction models under time-dependent generalized linear models and evaluate the incremental values of new biomarkers and genetic markers. RESULTS: Our results suggest that aggregating the information from both the genetic markers and biomarkers substantially improves the accuracy for predicting 5-year and 10-year risks of rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Our method provided robust procedures to evaluate the incremental value of new biomarkers allowing for complex sampling designs.
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 | 0.158 | 0.350 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".