MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471532197 · doi:10.1111/biom.12561

Modeling of Successive Cancer Risks in Lynch Syndrome Families in the Presence of Competing Risks Using Copulas

2016· article· en· W2471532197 on OpenAlexafffund
Yun‐Hee Choi, Laurent Briollais, Aung Ko Win, John L. Hopper, Daniel D. Buchanan, Mark A. Jenkins, Lajmi Lakhal‐Chaieb

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalWestern University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionMayo Clinic
KeywordsPenetranceInferenceCovariateComputer scienceStatisticsMissing dataColorectal cancerCopula (linguistics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Causal inferenceEconometricsMedicineCancerMathematicsInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we propose an association model to estimate the penetrance (risk) of successive cancers in the presence of competing risks. The association between the successive events is modeled via a copula and a proportional hazards model is specified for each competing event. This work is motivated by the analysis of successive cancers for people with Lynch Syndrome in the presence of competing risks. The proposed inference procedure is adapted to handle missing genetic covariates and selection bias, induced by the data collection protocol of the data at hand. The performance of the proposed estimation procedure is evaluated by simulations and its use is illustrated with data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (Colon CFR).

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207