MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111826093 · doi:10.1101/2020.12.04.20244046

A Comprehensive Epithelial Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction Model Incorporating Genetic and Epidemiological Risk Factors

2020· preprint· en· W3111826093 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew Lee, Xin Yang, Jonathan P. Tyrer, Aleksandra Gentry‐Maharaj, Andy Ryan, Nasim Mavaddat, Alex Cunningham, Tim Carver, Stephanie Archer, Goska Leslie, Jatinderpal Kalsi, Faiza Gaba, Ranjit Manchanda, Simon A. Gayther, Susan J. Ramus, Fiona M Walter, Marc Tischkowitz, Ian Jacobs, Usha Menon, Douglas F. Easton, Paul D.P. Pharoah, Antonis C. Antoniou

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilEuropean CommissionUniversity College LondonCancer Research UKGovernment of CanadaFondation du cancer du sein du QuébecCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGenome Canada
KeywordsEpidemiologyMedicineOncologyOvarian cancerPercentileRelative riskRisk assessmentEpithelial ovarian cancerPopulationInternal medicineGenetic epidemiologyPolygenic risk scoreGenetic modelDemographyGynecologyCancerEnvironmental healthBiologyStatisticsGeneticsConfidence intervalGenotypeGeneComputer scienceSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) has high mortality partly due to late diagnosis. Prevention is available but may be associated with adverse effects. A multifactorial risk model based on known genetic and epidemiological risk factors (RFs) for EOC can help identify females at higher risk who could benefit from targeted screening and prevention. Methods We developed a multifactorial EOC risk model for females of European ancestry incorporating the effects of pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D and BRIP1 , a polygenic risk score (PRS) of arbitrary size, the effects of RFs and explicit family history (FH) using a synthetic model approach. The PRS, PV and RFs were assumed to act multiplicatively. Results Based on a currently available PRS for EOC that explains 5% of the EOC polygenic variance, the estimated lifetime risks under the multifactorial model in the general population vary from 0.5% to 4.6% for the 1 st to 99 th percentiles of the EOC risk-distribution. The corresponding range for females with an affected first-degree relative is 1.9% to 10.3%. Based on the combined risk distribution, 33% of RAD51D PV carriers are expected to have a lifetime EOC risk of less than 10%. RFs provided the widest distribution, followed by the PRS. In an independent partial model validation, absolute and relative 5-year risks were well-calibrated in quintiles of predicted risk. Conclusion This multifactorial risk model can facilitate stratification, in particular among females with FH of cancer and/or moderate- and high-risk PVs. The model is available via the CanRisk Tool ( www.canrisk.org ).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207