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

Commentary: core descriptor sets using consensus methods support 'table one' consistency

Development of a core descriptor set for parastomal hernia repair

The use of core descriptors from the ENiGMA code study in recent literature: a systematic review

Creation of Standardized Common Data Elements for Diagnostic Tests in Infectious Disease Studies: Semantic and Syntactic Mapping

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

A minimum data set-Core outcome set, core data elements, and core measurement set-For degenerative cervical myelopathy research (AO Spine RECODE DCM): A consensus study

The Scoliosis Research Society adult spinal deformity standard outcome set

Establishing a paediatric critical care core quality measure set using a multistakeholder, consensus-driven process

Core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in long-term care older residents: international key stakeholder informed consensus study

Comparison of published core outcome sets with outcomes recommended in regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: cross sectional analysis

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach

Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: What They are and Why We Need Them

Towards robust clinical genome interpretation: developing a consistent terminology to characterize disease-gene relationships - allelic requirement, inheritance modes and disease mechanisms

Core outcome set for clinical trials of stent implantation in coronary heart disease -- a systematic review and mixed-method consensus study

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials

Describing a complex primary health care population to support future decision support initiatives

Implementation of a dyadic nomenclature for monogenic diseases

Defining a core outcome set for hypermobility spectrum disorders and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: A Delphi consensus study

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

A core outcome set for best care for the dying person: Results of an international Delphi study and consensus meeting

Patient and family engagement in the development of core outcome sets for two rare chronic diseases in children