Body Mass Index Genetic Risk Score and Endometrial Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified common variants that predispose individuals to a higher body mass index (BMI), an independent risk factor for endometrial cancer. Composite genotype risk scores (GRS) based on the joint effect of published BMI risk loci were used to explore whether endometrial cancer shares a genetic background with obesity. Genotype and risk factor data were available on 3,376 endometrial cancer case and 3,867 control participants of European ancestry from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium GWAS. A BMI GRS was calculated by summing the number of BMI risk alleles at 97 independent loci. For exploratory analyses, additional GRSs were based on subsets of risk loci within putative etiologic BMI pathways. The BMI GRS was statistically significantly associated with endometrial cancer risk (P = 0.002). For every 10 BMI risk alleles a woman had a 13% increased endometrial cancer risk (95% CI: 4%, 22%). However, after adjusting for BMI, the BMI GRS was no longer associated with risk (per 10 BMI risk alleles OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.07; P = 0.78). Heterogeneity by BMI did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.06), and no effect modification was noted by age, GWAS Stage, study design or between studies (P≥0.58). In exploratory analyses, the GRS defined by variants at loci containing monogenic obesity syndrome genes was associated with reduced endometrial cancer risk independent of BMI (per BMI risk allele OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.96; P = 2.1 x 10-5). Possessing a large number of BMI risk alleles does not increase endometrial cancer risk above that conferred by excess body weight among women of European descent. Thus, the GRS based on all current established BMI loci does not provide added value independent of BMI. Future studies are required to validate the unexpected observed relation between monogenic obesity syndrome genetic variants and endometrial cancer risk.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".