Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies: The GRIPS Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but the quality and completeness of reporting varies.A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines.These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis.A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately in PLoS Medicine as Supporting Information (S1) and in Janssens AC, Ioannidis JP, van Duijn CM, Little J, Khoury MJ; GRIPS Group. Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies: the GRIPS statement. Eur J Epidemiol 2011; 26(4): 255-9....
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 | 0.766 | 0.854 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".