Genetic Variation in the Inflammation and Innate Immunity Pathways and Colorectal Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is widely accepted that chronic inflammation plays a role in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Using a two-stage design, we examined the associations between colorectal cancer and common variation in 37 key genes in the inflammation and innate immunity pathways. METHODS: In the discovery stage, 2,322 discordant sibships (2,535 cases, 3,915 sibling controls) from the Colorectal Cancer Family Registry were genotyped for more than 600 tagSNPs and 99 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were selected for further examination based on strength of association. In the second stage, 351 SNPs tagging gene regions covered by the 99 SNPs were tested in 4,783 Multiethnic Cohort subjects (2,153 cases, 2,630 controls). RESULTS: The association between rs9858822 in the PPARG gene and colorectal cancer was statistically significant at the end of the second stage (OR per allele = 1.36, Bonferroni-adjusted P = 0.045), based on the "effective" number of markers in stage II (n = 306). The risk allele C was common (frequency 0.3) in African Americans but rare (frequency < 0.03) in whites, Japanese Americans, Latinos, and Native Hawaiians. No statistically significant heterogeneity of effects across race/ethnicity, body mass index (BMI) levels, regular aspirin use, or pack-years of smoking was detected for this SNP. Suggestive associations were also observed for several SNPs in close vicinity to rs9858822. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide new evidence of association between PPARG variants and colorectal cancer risk. IMPACT: Further replication in independent samples is warranted.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".