MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506035177 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2016-2587

Abstract 2587: Comprehensive colorectal cancer risk prediction to inform personalized screening and intervention

2016· article· en· W2506035177 on OpenAlexaff
Jihyoun Jeon, Sonja I. Berndt, Hermann Brenner, Peter T. Campbell, Andrew T. Chan, Jenny Chang‐Claude, Mengmeng Du, Graham G. Giles, Jian Gong, Stephen B. Gruber, Tabitha A. Harrison, Michael Hoffmeister, Loı̈c Le Marchand, Li Li, John D. Potter, Gad Rennert, Robert E. Schoen, Martha L. Slattery, Emily White, Michael O. Woods, Ulrike Peters, Li Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily historyColorectal cancerMedicineLogistic regressionInternal medicineOncologyEpidemiologyCancerRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, despite the fact that it is one of the most preventable and treatable cancers when detected early via screening. The current screening guidelines for CRC are based on age, family history of CRC, and previous screening results. However, multiple environmental and lifestyle risk factors have been established or suspected for CRC, as have many common genetic susceptibility loci. It is critical to utilize this information to better stratify individuals into low- and high-risk groups for optimized and personalized screening and intervention recommendations. Using data from two large consortia (8421 CRC cases and 9767 controls): the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) and the Colorectal Transdisciplinary study (CORECT), we developed risk prediction models for men and women based on family history, environmental and lifestyle risk factors, and known CRC susceptibility loci identified through genome-wide association studies. We constructed an environmental risk score (E-score) as a weighted sum of 19 established or potential environmental and lifestyle risk factors for CRC with weights obtained from a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Compared to the model that includes only family history, the E-score significantly improves the discriminatory accuracy for both men (AUC = 0.62 vs. 0.53, p-value < 1e-5) and women (AUC = 0.60 vs. 0.52, p-value < 1e-5). Similarly, we also constructed a genetic risk score (G-score) using 50 common variants associated with CRC risk, and the G-score also significantly improves the discriminatory accuracy for both men (AUC = 0.60 vs. 0.53, p-value < 1e-5) and women (AUC = 0.59 vs. 0.52, p-value < 1e-5) over the family history-only model. Compared to the model with family history and E-score, the inclusion of the G-score in the model further improves the discriminatory accuracy for both men (AUC = 0.65 vs. 0.62, p-value = 0.0152) and women (AUC = 0.63 vs. 0.60, p-value = 0.0005). Our risk prediction models are the first to incorporate both comprehensive environmental and lifestyle risk factors, and known CRC common genetic variants. The E- and G-scores are independent risk predictors for CRC, and models that incorporate both scores improve the discriminatory accuracy significantly compared to family history-only models. Using risk-factor distributions available from nationally representative data (e.g., NHANES), we will provide absolute-risk estimates of CRC using both the E- and G-scores. We expect our comprehensive models incorporating both environmental and genetic risk factors to provide more accurate estimation of CRC, which will be useful for recommending individually tailored screening and intervention strategies to prevent this common cancer. Citation Format: Jihyoun Jeon, Sonja I. Berndt, Hermann Brenner, Peter T. Campbell, Andrew T. Chan, Jenny Chang-Claude, Mengmeng Du, Graham Giles, Jian Gong, Stephen B. Gruber, Tabitha A. Harrison, Michael Hoffmeister, Loic LeMarchand, Li Li, John D. Potter, Gad Rennert, Robert E. Schoen, Martha L. Slattery, Emily White, Michael O. Woods, Ulrike Peters, Li Hsu. Comprehensive colorectal cancer risk prediction to inform personalized screening and intervention. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 2587.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207