Genetic and Circulating Biomarker Data Improve Risk Prediction for Pancreatic Cancer in the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and 80% of patients present with advanced, incurable disease. Risk markers for pancreatic cancer have been characterized, but combined models are not used clinically to identify individuals at high risk for the disease. METHODS: Within a nested case-control study of 500 pancreatic cancer cases diagnosed after blood collection and 1,091 matched controls enrolled in four U.S. prospective cohorts, we characterized absolute risk models that included clinical factors (e.g., body mass index, history of diabetes), germline genetic polymorphisms, and circulating biomarkers. RESULTS: Model discrimination showed an area under ROC curve of 0.62 via cross-validation. Our final integrated model identified 3.7% of men and 2.6% of women who had at least 3 times greater than average risk in the ensuing 10 years. Individuals within the top risk percentile had a 4% risk of developing pancreatic cancer by age 80 years and 2% 10-year risk at age 70 years. CONCLUSIONS: Risk models that include established clinical, genetic, and circulating factors improved disease discrimination over models using clinical factors alone. IMPACT: Absolute risk models for pancreatic cancer may help identify individuals in the general population appropriate for disease interception.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".