MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409285702 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2407934

Assessment of a Polygenic Risk Score in Screening for Prostate Cancer

2025· article· en· W4409285702 on OpenAlexaff
Jana McHugh, Elizabeth Bancroft, Edward Saunders, Mark N. Brook, Eva McGrowder, Sarah Wakerell, Denzil James, Reshma Rageevakumar, Barbara Benton, Natalie Taylor, Kathryn Myhill, Matthew Hogben, Netty Kinsella, Aslam Sohaib, Declan Cahill, Stephen Hazell, Samuel J. Withey, Naami Charlotte Mcaddy, Elizabeth Page, Andrea Osborne, Sarah Benafif, Ann-Britt Jones, Dhruv Patel, Dean Y. Huang, Kaljit Kaur, Bradley Russell, Fionnuala Croft, Justyna Sobczak, Claire McNally, F. Mutch, Samantha Bennett, Lenita Kingston, Questa Karlsson, Tokhir Dadaev, Sibel Saya, Susan Merson, Angela Wood, Nening M. Dennis, Nafisa Hussain, Alison Thwaites, Syed Arshad Hussain, Imran Rafi, Michelle Ferris, Pardeep Kumar, Nicholas D. James, Nora Pashayan, Zsofia Kote‐Jarai, Rosalind A. Eeles

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersEuropean Research CouncilCancer Research UKRoyal Marsden Cancer CharityPeacock TrustNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
KeywordsPolygenic risk scoreProstate cancerOncologyInternal medicineMedicineCancerBiologyGeneticsGeneGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of prostate cancer is increasing. Screening with an assay of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has a high rate for false positive results. Genomewide association studies have identified common germline variants in persons with prostate cancer, which can be used to calculate a polygenic risk score associated with risk of prostate cancer. METHODS: We recruited persons 55 to 69 years of age from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, we derived polygenic risk scores from 130 variants known to be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Participants with a polygenic risk score in the 90th percentile or higher were invited to undergo prostate cancer screening with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy, irrespective of PSA level. RESULTS: Among 40,292 persons invited to participate, 8953 (22.2%) expressed interest in participating and 6393 had their polygenic risk score calculated; 745 (11.7%) had a polygenic risk score in the 90th percentile or higher and were invited to undergo screening. Of these 745 participants, 468 (62.8%) underwent MRI and prostate biopsy; prostate cancer was detected in 187 participants (40.0%). The median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range, 57 to 73). Of the 187 participants with cancer, 103 (55.1%) had prostate cancer classified as intermediate or higher risk according to the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria, so treatment was indicated; cancer would not have been detected in 74 (71.8%) of these participants according to the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway currently used in the United Kingdom (high PSA level and positive MRI results). In addition, 40 of the participants with cancer (21.4%) had disease classified as unfavorable intermediate risk or as high or very high risk according to NCCN criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In a prostate cancer screening program involving participants in the top decile of risk as determined by a polygenic risk score, the percentage found to have clinically significant disease was higher than the percentage that would have been identified with the use of PSA or MRI. (Funded by the European Research Council Seventh Framework Program and others; BARCODE1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03857477.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207