MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407447102 · doi:10.1002/ijc.30206

Assessing the role of insulin‐like growth factors and binding proteins in prostate cancer using Mendelian randomization: Genetic variants as instruments for circulating levels

2016· article· en· W2407447102 on OpenAlexafffund
Carolina Bonilla, Sarah J. Lewis, Mari‐Anne Rowlands, Tom R. Gaunt, George Davey Smith, David Gunnell, Tom Palmer, Jenny Donovan, Freddie C. Hamdy, David E. Neal, Rosalind A. Eeles, Doug Easton, Zsofia Kote‐Jarai, Ali Amin Al Olama, Sara Benlloch, Kenneth Muir, Graham G. Giles, Fredrik Wiklund, Henrik Grönberg, Christopher A. Haiman, Johanna Schleutker, Børge G. Nordestgaard, Ruth C. Travis, Nora Pashayan, Kay‐Tee Khaw, Janet L. Stanford, William J. Blot, Stephen N. Thibodeau, Christiane Maier, Adam S. Kibel, Cezary Cybulski, Lisa Cannon‐Albright, Hermann Brenner, Jong Moon Park, Radka Kaneva, Jyotsna Batra, Manuel R. Teixeira, Hardev Pandha, Mark Lathrop, Richard M. Martin, Jeff M.P. Holly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteWorld Cancer Research FundMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKUniversity of BristolUnderstanding SocietyUniversity of EssexWellcome TrustUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustNational Cancer Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthOvarian Cancer Research FundMcGill UniversityCancer Research InstituteRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustEconomic and Social Research CouncilU.S. Department of DefenseSanofiBreast Cancer Research FoundationPfizer
KeywordsMendelian randomizationProstate cancerInsulin-like growth factor-binding proteinMendelian inheritanceBiologyGeneticsInsulinOncologyRandomizationInternal medicineCancerMedicineEndocrinologyBioinformaticsInsulin-like growth factorCancer researchGeneGenetic variantsGrowth factorClinical trialGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circulating insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) and their binding proteins (IGFBPs) are associated with prostate cancer. Using genetic variants as instruments for IGF peptides, we investigated whether these associations are likely to be causal. We identified from the literature 56 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the IGF axis previously associated with biomarker levels (8 from a genome-wide association study [GWAS] and 48 in reported candidate genes). In ∼700 men without prostate cancer and two replication cohorts (N ∼ 900 and ∼9,000), we examined the properties of these SNPS as instrumental variables (IVs) for IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-3. Those confirmed as strong IVs were tested for association with prostate cancer risk, low (< 7) vs. high (≥ 7) Gleason grade, localised vs. advanced stage, and mortality, in 22,936 controls and 22,992 cases. IV analysis was used in an attempt to estimate the causal effect of circulating IGF peptides on prostate cancer. Published SNPs in the IGFBP1/IGFBP3 gene region, particularly rs11977526, were strong instruments for IGF-II and IGFBP-3, less so for IGF-I. Rs11977526 was associated with high (vs. low) Gleason grade (OR per IGF-II/IGFBP-3 level-raising allele 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10). Using rs11977526 as an IV we estimated the causal effect of a one SD increase in IGF-II (∼265 ng/mL) on risk of high vs. low grade disease as 1.14 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.31). Because of the potential for pleiotropy of the genetic instruments, these findings can only causally implicate the IGF pathway in general, not any one specific biomarker.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207