Combining common genetic variants and non-genetic risk factors to predict risk of cutaneous melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melanoma heritability is among the highest for cancer and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) contribute to it. To date, only SNPs that reached statistical significance in genome-wide association studies or few candidate SNPs have been included in melanoma risk prediction models. We compared four approaches for building polygenic risk scores (PRS) using 12 874 melanoma cases and 23 203 controls from Melanoma Meta-Analysis Consortium as a training set, and newly genotyped 3102 cases and 2301 controls from the MelaNostrum consortium for validation. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for melanoma risk using traditional melanoma risk factors and the PRS with the largest area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC). We estimated absolute risks combining the PRS and other risk factors, with age- and sex-specific melanoma incidence and competing mortality rates from Italy as an example. The best PRS, including 204 SNPs (AUC = 64.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 63-65.8%), developed using winner's curse estimate corrections, had a per-quintile OR = 1.35 (95% CI = 1.30-1.41), corresponding to a 3.33-fold increase comparing the 5th to the 1st PRS quintile. The AUC improvement by adding the PRS was up to 7%, depending on adjusted factors and country. The 20-year absolute risk estimates based on the PRS, nevus count and pigmentation characteristics for a 60-year-old Italian man ranged from 0.5 to 11.8% (relative risk = 26.34), indicating good separation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".