Adult body mass index and risk of ovarian cancer by subtype: a Mendelian randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have reported a positive association between body mass index (BMI) and ovarian cancer risk. However, questions remain as to whether this represents a causal effect, or holds for all histological subtypes. The lack of association observed for serous cancers may, for instance, be due to disease-associated weight loss. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic markers as proxies for risk factors to overcome limitations of observational studies. We used MR to elucidate the relationship between BMI and ovarian cancer, hypothesizing that genetically predicted BMI would be associated with increased risk of non-high grade serous ovarian cancers (non-HGSC) but not HGSC. METHODS: We pooled data from 39 studies (14 047 cases, 23 003 controls) in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. We constructed a weighted genetic risk score (GRS, partial F-statistic = 172), summing alleles at 87 single nucleotide polymorphisms previously associated with BMI, weighting by their published strength of association with BMI. Applying two-stage predictor-substitution MR, we used logistic regression to estimate study-specific odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between genetically predicted BMI and risk, and pooled these using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Higher genetically predicted BMI was associated with increased risk of non-HGSC (pooled OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61 per 5 units BMI) but not HGSC (pooled OR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.88-1.27). Secondary analyses stratified by behaviour/subtype suggested that, consistent with observational data, the association was strongest for low-grade/borderline serous cancers (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.33-2.81). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that higher BMI increases risk of non-HGSC, but not the more common and aggressive HGSC subtype, confirming the observational evidence.
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 | 0.035 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".