A framework for assessing interactions for risk stratification models: the example of ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generally, risk stratification models for cancer use effect estimates from risk/protective factor analyses that have not assessed potential interactions between these exposures. We have developed a 4-criterion framework for assessing interactions that includes statistical, qualitative, biological, and practical approaches. We present the application of this framework in an ovarian cancer setting because this is an important step in developing more accurate risk stratification models. Using data from 9 case-control studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of interactions among 15 unequivocal risk and protective factors for ovarian cancer (including 14 non-genetic factors and a 36-variant polygenic score) with age and menopausal status. Pairwise interactions between the risk/protective factors were also assessed. We found that menopausal status modifies the association among endometriosis, first-degree family history of ovarian cancer, breastfeeding, and depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate use and disease risk, highlighting the importance of understanding multiplicative interactions when developing risk prediction models.
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 | 0.087 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".