A new GWAS and meta-analysis with 1000Genomes imputation identifies novel risk variants for colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) have identified 23 susceptibility loci thus far. Analyses of previously conducted GWAS indicate additional risk loci are yet to be discovered. To identify novel CRC susceptibility loci, we conducted a new GWAS and performed a meta-analysis with five published GWAS (totalling 7,577 cases and 9,979 controls of European ancestry), imputing genotypes utilising the 1000 Genomes Project. The combined analysis identified new, significant associations with CRC at 1p36.2 marked by rs72647484 (minor allele frequency [MAF] = 0.09) near CDC42 and WNT4 (P = 1.21 × 10(-8), odds ratio [OR] = 1.21 ) and at 16q24.1 marked by rs16941835 (MAF = 0.21, P = 5.06 × 10(-8); OR = 1.15) within the long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) RP11-58A18.1 and ~500 kb from the nearest coding gene FOXL1. Additionally we identified a promising association at 10p13 with rs10904849 intronic to CUBN (MAF = 0.32, P = 7.01 × 10(-8); OR = 1.14). These findings provide further insights into the genetic and biological basis of inherited genetic susceptibility to CRC. Additionally, our analysis further demonstrates that imputation can be used to exploit GWAS data to identify novel disease-causing variants.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".