Predicting breast cancer risk using interacting genetic and demographic factors and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer (BC) is a multifactorial disease and the most common cancer in women worldwide. We describe a machine learning approach to identify a combination of interacting genetic variants (SNPs) and demographic risk factors for BC, especially factors related to both familial history (Group 1) and oestrogen metabolism (Group 2), for predicting BC risk. This approach identifies the best combinations of interacting genetic and demographic risk factors that yield the highest BC risk prediction accuracy. In tests on the Kuopio Breast Cancer Project (KBCP) dataset, our approach achieves a mean average precision (mAP) of 77.78 in predicting BC risk by using interacting genetic and Group 1 features, which is better than the mAPs of 74.19 and 73.65 achieved using only Group 1 features and interacting SNPs, respectively. Similarly, using interacting genetic and Group 2 features yields a mAP of 78.00, which outperforms the system based on only Group 2 features, which has a mAP of 72.57. Furthermore, the gene interaction maps built from genes associated with SNPs that interact with demographic risk factors indicate important BC-related biological entities, such as angiogenesis, apoptosis and oestrogen-related networks. The results also show that demographic risk factors are individually more important than genetic variants in predicting BC risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".