Breast and bowel cancers diagnosed in people ‘too young to have cancer’: A blueprint for research using family and twin studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young breast and bowel cancers (e.g., those diagnosed before age 40 or 50 years) have far greater morbidity and mortality in terms of years of life lost, and are increasing in incidence, but have been less studied. For breast and bowel cancers, the familial relative risks, and therefore the familial variances in age-specific log(incidence), are much greater at younger ages, but little of these familial variances has been explained. Studies of families and twins can address questions not easily answered by studies of unrelated individuals alone. We describe existing and emerging family and twin data that can provide special opportunities for discovery. We present designs and statistical analyses, including novel ideas such as the VALID (Variance in Age-specific Log Incidence Decomposition) model for causes of variation in risk, the DEPTH (DEPendency of association on the number of Top Hits) and other approaches to analyse genome-wide association study data, and the within-pair, ICE FALCON (Inference about Causation from Examining FAmiliaL CONfounding) and ICE CRISTAL (Inference about Causation from Examining Changes in Regression coefficients and Innovative STatistical AnaLysis) approaches to causation and familial confounding. Example applications to breast and colorectal cancer are presented. Motivated by the availability of the resources of the Breast and Colon Cancer Family Registries, we also present some ideas for future studies that could be applied to, and compared with, cancers diagnosed at older ages and address the challenges posed by young breast and bowel cancers.
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 | 0.069 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".