MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413345975 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaf228

Basal cell carcinoma risk prediction in survivors of childhood cancer

2025· article· en· W4413345975 on OpenAlexafffund
Cindy Im, Christina Boull, Zhe Lü, Linwan Xu, Yadav Sapkota, Rebecca M. Howell, Michael Arnold, Miriam Conces, Ashley J. Housten, Judith Gebauer, Thorsten Langer, Jop C. Teepen, Louis S. Constine, Yutaka Yasui, Melissa M. Hudson, Kirsten K. Ness, Gregory T. Armstrong, Joseph P. Neglia, Yan Yuan, Lucie M. Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAmerican Lebanese Syrian Associated CharitiesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteChildren's Cancer Research Fund
KeywordsMedicineCogBasal cell carcinomaReceiver operating characteristicCohortCumulative incidenceCancerIncidence (geometry)Risk assessmentRetrospective cohort studySkin cancerGuidelineOncologyInternal medicineBasal cellPathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Survivors of childhood cancer face excess risk of developing basal cell carcinoma. Age-specific basal cell carcinoma risk prediction models for survivors may support targeted screening recommendations. METHODS: We developed models predicting basal cell carcinoma risk by ages 40 and 50 years featuring detailed cancer treatment predictors, utilizing statistical and machine-learning algorithms and data from 23 166 five-year survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study. Selected models were externally validated in 5314 survivors in the St Jude Lifetime Cohort. Model discrimination and precision were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and benchmarked against the current Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines (COG LTFU, v6.0) for skin cancer screening. RESULTS: By ages 40 and 50 years, basal cell carcinoma cumulative incidence was 5% and 15% in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 7% and 21% in the St Jude Lifetime Cohort, respectively. The XGBoost algorithm-based models with treatment dose-specific predictors performed best, showing good external discrimination (age 40 years: AUROC = 0.75; age 50 years: AUROC = 0.76) and precision (age 40 years: AUPRC = 0.20; age 50 years: AUPRC = 0.52), outperforming COG LTFU Guideline-directed risk stratification (age 40 years: AUROC = 0.65; age 50 years: AUROC = 0.62; age 40 years: AUPRC = 0.09; age 50 years: AUPRC = 0.26; P < .01). These novel models reclassified 37% of survivors with COG-recommended skin cancer screening as low risk by age 40 years and 29% of survivors without COG-recommended screening as moderate or high risk by age 50 years, suggesting these recommendations overestimate risk in younger survivors and miss relevant predictors (eg, attained age, chemotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we present validated basal cell carcinoma risk prediction models for childhood cancer survivors that outperform current practice guidelines. The associated online risk calculator can inform risk- and age-based screening recommendations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207