Genetic Ancestry and Risk Factors for Breast Cancer among Latinas in the San Francisco Bay Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic association studies using case-control designs are susceptible to false-positive and false-negative results if there are differences in genetic ancestry between cases and controls. We measured genetic ancestry among Latinas in a population-based case-control study of breast cancer and tested the association between ancestry and known breast cancer risk factors. We reasoned that if genetic ancestry is associated with known breast cancer risk factors, then the results of genetic association studies would be confounded. METHODS: We used 44 ancestry informative markers to estimate individuals' genetic ancestry in 563 Latina participants. To test whether ancestry is a predictor of hormone therapy use, parity, and body mass index (BMI), we used multivariate logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) associated with a 25% increase in Indigenous American ancestry, adjusting for age, education, and the participant's and grandparents' place of birth. RESULTS: Hormone therapy use was significantly less common among women with higher Indigenous American ancestry (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96). Higher Indigenous American ancestry was also significantly associated with overweight (BMI, 25-29.9 versus <25) and obesity (BMI, > or =30 versus <25), but only among foreign-born Latina women (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.97-5.99 and OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.24-3.06, respectively). CONCLUSION: Some breast cancer risk factors are associated with genetic ancestry among Latinas in the San Francisco Bay Area. Therefore, case-control genetic association studies for breast cancer should directly measure genetic ancestry to avoid potential confounding.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".