A comprehensive examination of breast cancer risk loci in African American women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies have identified 73 breast cancer risk variants mainly in European populations. Given considerable differences in linkage disequilibrium structure between populations of European and African ancestry, the known risk variants may not be informative for risk in African ancestry populations. In a previous fine-mapping investigation of 19 breast cancer loci, we were able to identify SNPs in four regions that better captured risk associations in African American women. In this study of breast cancer in African American women (3016 cases, 2745 controls), we tested an additional 54 novel breast cancer risk variants. Thirty-eight variants (70%) were found to have an association with breast cancer in the same direction as previously reported, with eight (15%) replicating at P < 0.05. Through fine-mapping, in three regions (1q32, 3p24, 10q25), we identified variants that better captured associations with overall breast cancer or estrogen receptor positive disease. We also observed suggestive associations with variants (at P < 5 × 10(-6)) in three separate regions (6q25, 14q13, 22q12) that may represent novel risk variants. Directional consistency of association observed for ∼65-70% of currently known genetic variants for breast cancer in women of African ancestry implies a shared functional common variant at most loci. To validate and enhance the spectrum of alleles that define associations at the known breast cancer risk loci, as well as genome-wide, will require even larger collaborative efforts in women of African ancestry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".