MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412413629

The effects of height and BMI on prostate cancer incidence and mortality: A Mendelian randomization study in 20,848 cases and 20,214 controls from the PRACTICAL consortium

2015· article· en· W2412413629 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Neil M Davies, Tom R. Gaunt, Sarah J. Lewis, Jeff M.P. Holly, Jenny Donovan, Freddie C. Hamdy, John P. Kemp, 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, David E. Neal, 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-Hak Park, Radka Kaneva, Jyotsna Batra, Manuel R. Teixeira, Hardev Pandha, Mark Lathrop, George Davey Smith, Richard M. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueTampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Cancer Research FundMedical Research CouncilUniversity of BristolCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEuropean CommissionBreast Cancer Research FoundationMcGill UniversityRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustOvarian Cancer Research FundNational Institutes of HealthCancer Research UK
KeywordsMendelian randomizationProstate cancerMedicineInternal medicineOdds ratioIncidence (geometry)OncologyObesityEpidemiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismProstateDemographyCancerGynecologyGeneticsGenotypeBiologyGenetic variants
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies suggest a potential role for obesity and determinants of adult stature in prostate cancer risk and mortality, but the relationships described in the literature are complex. To address uncertainty over the causal nature of previous observational findings, we investigated associations of height- and adiposity-related genetic variants with prostate cancer risk and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study based on 20,848 prostate cancers and 20,214 controls of European ancestry from 22 studies in the PRACTICAL consortium. We constructed genetic risk scores that summed each man's number of height and BMI increasing alleles across multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms robustly associated with each phenotype from published genome-wide association studies. RESULTS: The genetic risk scores explained 6.31 and 1.46% of the variability in height and BMI, respectively. There was only weak evidence that genetic variants previously associated with increased BMI were associated with a lower prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation increase in BMI genetic score 0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 1.00; p = 0.07). Genetic variants associated with increased height were not associated with prostate cancer incidence (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97, 1.01; p = 0.23), but were associated with an increase (OR 1.13; 95 % CI 1.08, 1.20) in prostate cancer mortality among low-grade disease (p heterogeneity, low vs. high grade <0.001). Genetic variants associated with increased BMI were associated with an increase (OR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.14) in all-cause mortality among men with low-grade disease (p heterogeneity = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence of a substantial effect of genetically elevated height or BMI on prostate cancer risk, suggesting that previously reported observational associations may reflect common environmental determinants of height or BMI and prostate cancer risk. Genetically elevated height and BMI were associated with increased mortality (prostate cancer-specific and all-cause, respectively) in men with low-grade disease, a potentially informative but novel finding that requires replication.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University)Same topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207