Evidence mapPaperPMID 38366150Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2024

Using clinical and genetic risk factors for risk prediction of 8 cancers in the UK Biobank.

Jiaqi Hu, Yixuan Ye, Geyu Zhou, Hongyu Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jiaqi HuDepartment of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6317-7730
Yixuan YeProgram of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Geyu ZhouProgram of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Hongyu ZhaoProgram of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1195-9607
Yale University · US

Funding

Statistical Methods for Genetic Risk Predictions R01HG012735 · YALE UNIVERSITY · 2025 to 2025
$577k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM134005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModels with polygenic risk scores and clinical factors to predict risk of different cancers have been developed, but these models have been limited by the polygenic risk score-derivation methods and the incomplete selection of clinical variables.

methodsWe used UK Biobank to train the best polygenic risk scores for 8 cancers (bladder, breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers) and select relevant clinical variables from 733 baseline traits through extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Combining polygenic risk scores and clinical variables, we developed Cox proportional hazards models for risk prediction in these cancers.

resultsOur models achieved high prediction accuracy for 8 cancers, with areas under the curve ranging from 0.618 (95% confidence interval = 0.581 to 0.655) for ovarian cancer to 0.831 (95% confidence interval = 0.817 to 0.845) for lung cancer. Additionally, our models could identify individuals at a high risk for developing cancer. For example, the risk of breast cancer for individuals in the top 5% score quantile was nearly 13 times greater than for individuals in the lowest 10%. Furthermore, we observed a higher proportion of individuals with high polygenic risk scores in the early-onset group but a higher proportion of individuals at high clinical risk in the late-onset group.

conclusionOur models demonstrated the potential to predict cancer risk and identify high-risk individuals with great generalizability to different cancers. Our findings suggested that the polygenic risk score model is more predictive for the cancer risk of early-onset patients than for late-onset patients, while the clinical risk model is more predictive for late-onset patients. Meanwhile, combining polygenic risk scores and clinical risk factors has overall better predictive performance than using polygenic risk scores or clinical risk factors alone.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsBiological Specimen BanksHumansMaleRisk FactorsUK Biobank

Identifiers

PMID38366150
PMCPMC10919929
OpenAlexW4391886183

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.