MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095816919 · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddu177

Identification of susceptibility loci for colorectal cancer in a genome-wide meta-analysis

2014· review· en· W2095816919 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Whiffin, Fay J. Hosking, Susan M. Farrington, Claire Palles, Sara E. Dobbins, Lina Zgaga, Amy Lloyd, Ben Kinnersley, Maggie Gorman, Albert Tenesa, Peter Broderick, Yufei Wang, Ella Barclay, Caroline Hayward, Lynn Martin, Daniel D. Buchanan, Aung Ko Win, John L. Hopper, Mark A. Jenkins, Noralane M. Lindor, Polly A. Newcomb, Steve Gallinger, David V. Conti, Fredrick R. Schumacher, Graham Casey, Tao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Molecular Genetics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteMedical Research CouncilCancerfondenScottish GovernmentNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEuropean CommissionSir John Fisher FoundationNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsGenome-wide association studySingle-nucleotide polymorphismOdds ratioColorectal cancerMeta-analysisBiologyGenetic associationGeneticsCase-control studyOncologyBioinformaticsGenotypeMedicineCancerInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To identify common variants influencing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, we performed a meta-analysis of five genome-wide association studies, comprising 5626 cases and 7817 controls of European descent. We conducted replication of top ranked single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in additional series totalling 14 037 cases and 15 937 controls, identifying a new CRC risk locus at 10q24.2 [rs1035209; odds ratio (OR) = 1.13, P = 4.54 × 10(-11)]. We also performed meta-analysis of our studies, with previously published data, of several recently purported CRC risk loci. We failed to find convincing evidence for a previously reported genome-wide association at rs11903757 (2q32.3). Of the three additional loci for which evidence of an association in Europeans has been previously described we failed to show an association between rs59336 (12q24.21) and CRC risk. However, for the other two SNPs, our analyses demonstrated new, formally significant associations with CRC. These are rs3217810 intronic in CCND2 (12p13.32; OR = 1.19, P = 2.16 × 10(-10)) and rs10911251 near LAMC1 (1q25.3; OR = 1.09, P = 1.75 × 10(-8)). Additionally, we found some evidence to support a relationship between, rs647161, rs2423297 and rs10774214 and CRC risk originally identified in East Asians in our European datasets. Our findings provide further insights into the genetic and biological basis of inherited genetic susceptibility to CRC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations171
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Molecular GeneticsSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207