Risk prediction models for endometrial cancer: development and validation in an international consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer risk stratification may help target interventions, screening, or prophylactic hysterectomy to mitigate the rising burden of this cancer. However, existing prediction models have been developed in select cohorts and have not considered genetic factors. METHODS: We developed endometrial cancer risk prediction models using data on postmenopausal White women aged 45-85 years from 19 case-control studies in the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium (E2C2). Relative risk estimates for predictors were combined with age-specific endometrial cancer incidence rates and estimates for the underlying risk factor distribution. We externally validated the models in 3 cohorts: Nurses' Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. RESULTS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the epidemiologic model ranged from 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.67) to 0.69 (95% CI = 0.66 to 0.72). Improvements in discrimination from the addition of genetic factors were modest (no change in area under the receiver operating characteristic curves in NHS; PLCO = 0.64 to 0.66). The epidemiologic model was well calibrated in NHS II (overall expected-to-observed ratio [E/O] = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.22) and PLCO (overall E/O = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.13) but poorly calibrated in NHS (overall E/O = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Using data from the largest, most heterogeneous study population to date (to our knowledge), prediction models based on epidemiologic factors alone successfully identified women at high risk of endometrial cancer. Genetic factors offered limited improvements in discrimination. Further work is needed to refine this tool for clinical or public health practice and expand these models to multiethnic populations.
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 | 0.071 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".