Breast Cancer Relative Hazard Estimates From Case–Control and Cohort Designs With Missing Data on Mammographic Density
乳腺密度数据缺失时病例对照与队列设计中的乳腺癌相对风险估计AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要涉及缺失协变量下的医学风险建模,未建立因果解释;使用 logistic 回归也不足以归入经济学离散选择。
乳腺密度数据缺失时病例对照与队列设计中的乳腺癌相对风险估计AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We analyzed data from the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project (BCDDP) to obtain multivariate relative hazard models for breast cancer that included mammographic density (MD) in addition to standard risk factors. Data from the BCDDP were collected from a stratified case–control study in the screening phase (1973–1980) and from follow-up of three subcohorts in the follow-up phase (1980–1995). For both phases, MD measurements were only available for about half the women who developed breast cancer (cases) and a small fraction of noncases. We used a logistic regression model for the stratified case–control study and developed a general pseudo-likelihood approach to accommodate missing covariate data (MD) by adapting the method of Scott and Wild and Breslow and Holubkov. We showed that this method was substantially more efficient than a previously proposed weighted-likelihood method. We assumed piecewise exponential models for the analysis of each subcohort, with the missing covariate (MD) distribution conditional on the observed information modeled with polytomous logistic regression. We developed an EM algorithm for estimation, which allowed for time-varying covariates, incomplete follow-up, and left truncation. We analyzed the three follow-up subcohorts separately and then combined the relative hazard models from the case–control and cohort data. The final model included main effects for MD, weight, age at first live birth, number of previous breast biopsies, and number of sisters or mother with breast cancer and was more discriminating (higher concordance) than the original model of Gail et al., which included standard risk factors but not MD. In a separate work, we combined this relative hazard model with other data to project absolute breast cancer risk.