Development and validation of a risk prediction model for incident liver cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model for liver cancer based on routinely available risk factors using the data from UK Biobank prospective cohort study. Methods: This analysis included 359,489 participants (2,894,807 person-years) without a previous diagnosis of cancer. We used the Fine-Gray regression model to predict the incident risk of liver cancer, accounting for the competing risk of all-cause death. Model discrimination and calibration were validated internally. Decision curve analysis was conducted to quantify the clinical utility of the model. Nomogram was built based on regression coefficients. Results: Good discrimination performance of the model was observed in both development and validation datasets, with an area under the curve (95% confidence interval) for 5-year risk of 0.782 (0.748-0.816) and 0.771 (0.702-0.840) respectively. The calibration showed fine agreement between observed and predicted risks. The model yielded higher positive net benefits in the decision curve analysis than considering either all participants as being at high or low risk, which indicated good clinical utility. Conclusion: A new risk prediction model for liver cancer composed of routinely available risk factors was developed. The model had good discrimination, calibration and clinical utility, which may help with the screening and management of liver cancer for general population in the public health field.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".