Threshold-Based Overlap of Breast Cancer High-Risk Classification Using Family History, Polygenic Risk Scores, and Traditional Risk Models in 180,398 Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) and traditional risk models (e.g., the Gail model [Gail]) are known to contribute largely independent information, but it is unclear how the overlap varies by ancestry, age, disease type (invasive breast cancer, DCIS), and risk threshold. Methods: In a retrospective case–control study, we evaluated risk prediction performance in 180,398 women (161,849 of European ancestry; 18,549 of Asian ancestry). Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were estimated. Results: PRS for invasive disease showed a stronger association in younger (<50 years) women (OR = 2.51, AUC = 0.622) than in women ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.06, AUC = 0.653) of European ancestry. PRS performance in Asians was lower (OR range = 1.62–1.64, AUC = 0.551–0.600). Gail performance was modest across groups and poor in younger Asian women (OR = 0.94–0.99, AUC = 0.523–0.533). Age interactions were observed for both PRS (p < 0.001) and Gail (p < 0.001) in Europeans, whereas in Asians, age interaction was observed only for Gail (invasive: p < 0.001; DCIS: p = 0.002). PRS identified more high-risk individuals than Gail in Asian populations, especially ≥50 years, while Gail identified more in Europeans. Overlap between PRS, Gail, and family history was limited at higher thresholds. Calibration analysis, comparing empirical and model-based ROC curves, showed divergence for both PRS and Gail (p < 0.001), which indicates miscalibration. In Europeans, family history and prior biopsies drove Gail discrimination. In younger Asians, age at first live birth was influential. Conclusions: PRS adds value to risk stratification beyond traditional tools, especially in younger women and Asian ancestry populations.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".