MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122107622 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-20-1237

Assessing Lung Cancer Absolute Risk Trajectory Based on a Polygenic Risk Model

2021· article· en· W3122107622 on OpenAlexafffund
Rayjean J. Hung, Matthew T. Warkentin, Yonathan Brhane, Nilanjan Chatterjee, David C. Christiani, Maria Teresa Landi, Neil E. Caporaso, Geoffrey Liu, Mattias Johansson, Demetrius Albanes, Loı̈c Le Marchand, Adonina Tardón, Gad Rennert, Stig E. Bojesen, Chu Chen, John K. Field, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Philip Lazarus, Shanbeth Zienolddiny, Stephen Lam, Angeline S. Andrew, Susanne M. Arnold, Melinda C. Aldrich, Heike Bickeböller, Angela Risch, Matthew B. Schabath, James McKay, Paul Brennan, Christopher I. Amos

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstitutePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research and Materiel CommandFundación para el Fomento en Asturias de la Investigación Científica Aplicada y la TecnologíaPrincess Margaret Hospital FoundationUniversidad de OviedoVanderbilt UniversityMoffitt Cancer CenterHerlev HospitalNorges ForskningsrådVanderbilt University Medical CenterCancer Care OntarioNational Center for Research ResourcesGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AllianceNational Cancer InstituteSundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie ForskningsrådWorld Health OrganizationRoy Castle Lung Cancer FoundationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsLung cancerAbsolute risk reductionCancerMedicineOncologyStatisticsInternal medicineMathematicsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death globally. An improved risk stratification strategy can increase efficiency of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening. Here we assessed whether individual's genetic background has clinical utility for risk stratification in the context of LDCT screening. On the basis of 13,119 patients with lung cancer and 10,008 controls with European ancestry in the International Lung Cancer Consortium, we constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) via 10-fold cross-validation with regularized penalized regression. The performance of risk model integrating PRS, including calibration and ability to discriminate, was assessed using UK Biobank data (N = 335,931). Absolute risk was estimated on the basis of age-specific lung cancer incidence and all-cause mortality as competing risk. To evaluate its potential clinical utility, the PRS distribution was simulated in the National Lung Screening Trial (N = 50,772 participants). The lung cancer ORs for individuals at the top decile of the PRS distribution versus those at bottom 10% was 2.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.92–3.00; P = 1.80 × 10−14] in the validation set (Ptrend = 5.26 × 10−20). The OR per SD of PRS increase was 1.26 (95% CI = 1.20–1.32; P = 9.69 × 10−23) for overall lung cancer risk in the validation set. When considering absolute risks, individuals at different PRS deciles showed differential trajectories of 5-year and cumulative absolute risk. The age reaching the LDCT screening recommendation threshold can vary by 4 to 8 years, depending on the individual's genetic background, smoking status, and family history. Collectively, these results suggest that individual's genetic background may inform the optimal lung cancer LDCT screening strategy. Significance: Three large-scale datasets reveal that, after accounting for risk factors, an individual's genetics can affect their lung cancer risk trajectory, thus may inform the optimal timing for LDCT screening.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Citations95
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207