Adapting the BOADICEA breast and ovarian cancer risk models for the ethnically diverse UK population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: BOADICEA is a widely used algorithm for predicting breast and ovarian cancer risks, using a combination of genetic and lifestyle, hormonal and reproductive risk factors. However, it has largely been developed using data from White/European individuals, limiting its applicability to other ethnicities. Here, we updated BOADICEA to provide ethnicity-specific risk estimates. METHODS: We utilised data from multiple sources to derive estimates for the distributions and effect sizes of risk factors in major UK ethnic groups (White, Black, South Asian, East Asian, and Mixed), along with ethnicity-specific population cancer incidences. We also developed a method for deriving adjusted polygenic scores for individuals of mixed genetic ancestry. RESULTS: The predicted average absolute risks were smaller in all non-White ethnic groups than in Whites, and the risk distributions were narrower. The proportion of women classified as at moderate or high risk of breast or ovarian cancer, according to national guidelines, was considerably smaller in non-Whites. DISCUSSION: The updated BOADICEA, available in the CanRisk tool ( www.canrisk.org ), is based on more appropriate estimates for non-White women in the UK. Further validation of the model in prospective studies is required. Considering these findings, risk classification guidelines for non-White women may need to be revised.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".