Building a Knowledge Graph Representing Causal Associations Between Risk Factors and Incidence of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the use of semantic- and evidence-based biomedical knowledge to build the RiskExplorer knowledge graph that outlines causal associations between risk factors and chronic disease or cancers. The intent of this work is to offer an interactive knowledge synthesis platform to empower health-information-seeking individuals to learn about and mitigate modifiable risk factors. Our approach analyzes biomedical text (from PubMed abstracts), Semantic Medline database, evidence-based semantic associations, literature-based discovery, and graph database to discover associations between risk factors and breast cancer. Our methodological framework involves (a) identifying relevant literature on specified chronic diseases or cancers, (b) extracting semantic associations via knowledge mining tool, (c) building rich semantic graph by transforming semantic associations to nodes and edges, (d) applying frequency-based methods and using semantic edge properties to traverse the graph and identify meaningful multi-node NCD risk paths. Generated multi-node risk paths consist of a source node (representing the source risk factor), one or more intermediate nodes (representing biomedical phenotypes), a target node (representing a chronic disease or cancer), and edges between nodes representing meaningful semantic associations. The results demonstrate that our methodology is capable of generating biomedically valid knowledge related to causal risk and protective factors related to breast cancer.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".