Prospective Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Risk Model Integrating Classical Risk Factors and Polygenic Risk in 15 Cohorts from Six Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT PURPOSE Risk-stratified breast cancer prevention requires accurate identification of women at sufficiently different levels of risk. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of a model integrating classical risk factors and a recently developed 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) to predict breast cancer risk. METHODS Fifteen prospective cohorts from six countries with 237,632 women (7,529 incident breast cancer patients) of European ancestry aged 19-75 years at baseline were included. Calibration of five-year risk was assessed by comparing predicted and observed proportions of cases overall and within risk categories. Risk stratification for women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years in those countries was evaluated by the proportion of women and future breast cancer cases crossing clinically-relevant risk thresholds. RESULTS The model integrating classical risk factors and PRS accurately predicted five-year risk. For women younger than 50 years, median (range) expected-to-observed ratio across the cohorts was 0.94 (0.72 to 1.01) overall and 0.9 (0.7 to 1.4) at the highest risk decile. For women 50 years or older, these ratios were 1.04 (0.73 to 1.31) and 1.2 (0.7 to 1.6), respectively. The proportion of women in the general population identified above the 3% five-year risk threshold (used for recommending risk-reducing medications in the US) ranged from 7.0% in Germany (∼841,000 of 12 million) to 17.7% in the US (∼5.3 of 30 million). At this threshold, 14.7% of US women were re-classified by the addition of PRS to classical risk factors, identifying 12.2% additional future breast cancer cases. CONCLUSION Evaluation across multiple prospective cohorts demonstrates that integrating a 313-SNP PRS into a risk model substantially improves its ability to stratify women of European ancestry for applying current breast cancer prevention guidelines.
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 | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".