Systematic meta-analyses and field synopsis of genetic association studies in colorectal adenomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low penetrance genetic variants, primarily single nucleotide polymorphisms, have substantial influence on colorectal cancer (CRC) susceptibility. Most CRCs develop from colorectal adenomas (CRA). Here we report the first comprehensive field synopsis that catalogues all genetic association studies on CRA, with a parallel online database [http://www.chs.med.ed.ac.uk/CRAgene/]. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, reviewing 9750 titles, and then extracted data from 130 publications reporting on 181 polymorphisms in 74 genes. We conducted meta-analyses to derive summary effect estimates for 37 polymorphisms in 26 genes. We applied the Venice criteria and Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) to assess the levels of the credibility of associations. RESULTS: We considered the association with the rs6983267 variant at 8q24 as 'highly credible', reaching genome-wide statistical significance in at least one meta-analysis model. We identified 'less credible' associations (higher heterogeneity, lower statistical power, BFDP > 0.02) with a further four variants of four independent genes: MTHFR c.677C>T p.A222V (rs1801133), TP53 c.215C>G p.R72P (rs1042522), NQO1 c.559C>T p.P187S (rs1800566), and NAT1 alleles imputed as fast acetylator genotypes. For the remaining 32 variants of 22 genes for which positive associations with CRA risk have been previously reported, the meta-analyses revealed no credible evidence to support these as true associations. CONCLUSIONS: The limited number of credible associations between low penetrance genetic variants and CRA reflects the lower volume of evidence and associated lack of statistical power to detect associations of the magnitude typically observed for genetic variants and chronic diseases. The CRA gene database provides context for CRA genetic association data and will help inform future research directions.
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 | 0.043 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".