Conditional concordance‐assisted learning under matched case‐control design for combining biomarkers for population screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorporating promising biomarkers into cancer screening practices for early-detection is increasingly appealing because of the unsatisfactory performance of current cancer screening strategies. The matched case-control design is commonly adopted in biomarker development studies to evaluate the discriminative power of biomarker candidates, with an intention to eliminate confounding effects. Data from matched case-control studies have been routinely analyzed by the conditional logistic regression, although the assumed logit link between biomarker combinations and disease risk may not always hold. We propose a conditional concordance-assisted learning method, which is distribution-free, for identifying an optimal combination of biomarkers to discriminate cases and controls. We are particularly interested in combinations with a clinically and practically meaningful specificity to prevent disease-free subjects from unnecessary and possibly intrusive diagnostic procedures, which is a top priority for cancer population screening. We establish asymptotic properties for the derived combination and confirm its favorable finite sample performance in simulations. We apply the proposed method to the prostate cancer data from the carotene and retinol efficacy trial (CARET).
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 | 0.052 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".