Mendelian randomization study of adiposity-related traits and risk of breast, ovarian, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adiposity traits have been associated with risk of many cancers in observational studies, but whether these associations are causal is unclear. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic predictors of risk factors as instrumental variables to eliminate reverse causation and reduce confounding bias. We performed MR analyses to assess the possible causal relationship of birthweight, childhood and adult body mass index (BMI), and waist-hip ratio (WHR) on the risks of breast, ovarian, prostate, colorectal and lung cancers. METHODS: We tested the association between genetic risk scores and each trait using summary statistics from published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and from 51 537 cancer cases and 61 600 controls in the Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) Consortium. RESULTS: We found an inverse association between the genetic score for childhood BMI and risk of breast cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 0.71 per standard deviation (s.d.) increase in childhood BMI; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60, 0.80; P = 6.5 × 10(-5)). We also found the genetic score for adult BMI to be inversely associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 0.66 per s.d. increase in BMI; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.77; P = 2.5 × 10(-7)), and positively associated with ovarian cancer (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.72; P = 0.017), lung cancer (OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.49; P = 2.9 × 10(-3)) and colorectal cancer (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.82, P = 0.016). The inverse association between genetically predicted adult BMI and breast cancer risk remained even after adjusting for directional pleiotropy via MR-Egger regression. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide additional understandings of the complex relationship between adiposity and cancer risks. Our results for breast and lung cancer are particularly interesting, given previous reports of effect heterogeneity by menopausal status and smoking status.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".