Potential novel candidate polymorphisms identified in genome-wide association study for breast cancer susceptibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have shown several risk alleles to be associated with breast cancer. However, the variants identified so far contribute to only a small proportion of disease risk. The objective of our GWAS was to identify additional novel breast cancer susceptibility variants and to replicate these findings in an independent cohort. We performed a two-stage association study in a cohort of 3,064 women from Alberta, Canada. In Stage I, we interrogated 906,600 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on Affymetrix SNP 6.0 arrays using 348 breast cancer cases and 348 controls. We used single-locus association tests to determine statistical significance for the observed differences in allele frequencies between cases and controls. In Stage II, we attempted to replicate 35 significant markers identified in Stage I in an independent study of 1,153 cases and 1,215 controls. Genotyping of Stage II samples was done using Sequenom Mass-ARRAY iPlex platform. Six loci from four different gene regions (chromosomes 4, 5, 16 and 19) showed statistically significant differences between cases and controls in both Stage I and Stage II testing, and also in joint analysis. The identified variants were from EDNRA, ROPN1L, C16orf61 and ZNF577 gene regions. The presented joint analyses from the two-stage study design were not significant after genome-wide correction. The SNPs identified in this study may serve as potential candidate loci for breast cancer risk in a further replication study in Stage III from Alberta population or independent validation in Caucasian cohorts elsewhere.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".