Abstract:Background To reduce cancer mortality and improve cancer outcomes, it is critical to understand the various cancer risk factors (RFs) across different domains (e.g., genetic, environmental, and behavioral risk factors) and levels (e.g., individual, interpersonal, and community levels). However, prior research on RFs of cancer outcomes, has primarily focused on individual level RFs due to the lack of integrated datasets that contain multi-level, multi-domain RFs. Further, the lack of a consensus and proper guidance on systematically identify RFs also increase the difficulty of RF selection from heterogenous data sources in a multi-level integrative data analysis (mIDA) study. More importantly, as mIDA studies require integrating heterogenous data sources, the data integration processes in the limited number of existing mIDA studies are inconsistently performed and poorly documented, and thus threatening transparency and reproducibility. Methods Informed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) research framework, we (1) reviewed existing reporting guidelines from the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network and (2) developed a theory-driven reporting guideline to guide the RF variable selection, data source selection, and data integration process. Then, we developed an ontology to standardize the documentation of the RF selection and data integration process in mIDA studies. Results We summarized the review results and created a reporting guideline—ATTEST—for reporting the variable selection and data source selection and integration process. We provided an ATTEST check list to help researchers to annotate and clearly document each step of their mIDA studies to ensure the transparency and reproducibility. We used the ATTEST to report two mIDA case studies and further transformed annotation results into sematic triples, so that the relationships among variables, data sources and integration processes are explicitly standardized and modeled using the classes and properties from OD-ATTEST. Conclusion Our ontology-based reporting guideline solves some key challenges in current mIDA studies for cancer outcomes research, through providing (1) a theory-driven guidance for multi-level and multi-domain RF variable and data source selection; and (2) a standardized documentation of the data selection and integration processes powered by an ontology, thus a way to enable sharing of mIDA study reports among researchers. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Health (NIH) awards UL1TR001427 and R01CA246418 and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award ME-2018C3-14754. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or PCORI. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Our study doesn't require IRB approval. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All the data needed are included in the manuscript. * ACS : American Cancer Society BRFSS : Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System EQUATOR : Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research FCDS : Florida Cancer Data System mIDA Multi-level Integrative Data Analysis NIH : National Institute of Health NIMHD : Minority Health and Health Disparities OD-ATTEST : Ontology for the Documentation of Variable and Data Source Selection and Integration Process RF : Risk Factor US : United States RUCA : Rural-Urban Commuting Area NCHS : National Center for Health Statistics BFO : Basic Formal Ontology NCBO : National Center for Biomedical Ontology RDF : Resource Description Framework GRIPS : Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies COHERE : Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence EHR Electronic Health Records OBI : Ontology for Biomedical Investigations IAO : Information Artifact Ontology NCIt : National Cancer Institute Thesaurus STATO : Statistics Ontology SIO : Semanticscience Integrated Ontology CDM : Common Data Model PCORnet : The national Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network

Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health outcomes: an American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research …

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Manuscript Checklist

The Oral Health Statistics Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration

Garbage in, Garbage Out: Data Collection, Quality Assessment and Reporting Standards for Social Media Data Use in Health Research, Infodemiology and Digital Disease Detection

Linear regression reporting practices for health researchers, a cross-sectional meta-research study

The LEADING Guideline. Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.

ACCF/AHA/ACR/SCAI/SIR/SVM/SVN/SVS 2010 Performance Measures for Adults with Peripheral Artery Disease

Clinician's Approach to Advanced Statistical Methods: Win Ratios, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Responder Analyses, and Standardized Mean Differences

An Ontology-based Approach to Guide and Document Variable and Data Source Selection and Data Integration Process to Support Integrative Data Analysis in Cancer Outcomes Research

Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State and Substantial Clinical Benefit Matter Most to Patients and Must Be Reported Correctly

Reporting and Methods in Developing Prognostic Prediction Models for Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Ten Points for High-Quality Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation

Statistical guidance provided to authors by clinical neurology and neuroscience journals

Common Statistical Methods and Reporting of Results in Medical Research

Poor quality in the reporting and use of statistical methods in public health – the case of unemployment and health

Reporting standards for child health research were few and poorly implemented

Methodology Standards Associated with Quality Reporting in Clinical Studies in Pediatric Surgery Journals.

Development of American Association for Thoracic Surgery Quality Gateway outcome models, analytics, and visualizations for quality assurance

Reporting standards for outbreak data: A systematic review