Alcohol consumption and prostate cancer incidence and progression: A Mendelian randomisation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in developed countries, and is a target for risk reduction strategies. The effects of alcohol consumption on prostate cancer incidence and survival remain unclear, potentially due to methodological limitations of observational studies. In this study, we investigated the associations of genetic variants in alcohol‐metabolising genes with prostate cancer incidence and survival. We analysed data from 23,868 men with prostate cancer and 23,051 controls from 25 studies within the international PRACTICAL Consortium. Study‐specific associations of 68 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 8 alcohol‐metabolising genes (Alcohol Dehydrogenases (ADHs) and Aldehyde Dehydrogenases (ALDHs)) with prostate cancer diagnosis and prostate cancer‐specific mortality, by grade, were assessed using logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. The data across the 25 studies were meta‐analysed using fixed‐effect and random‐effects models. We found little evidence that variants in alcohol metabolising genes were associated with prostate cancer diagnosis. Four variants in two genes exceeded the multiple testing threshold for associations with prostate cancer mortality in fixed‐effect meta‐analyses. SNPs within ALDH1A2 associated with prostate cancer mortality were rs1441817 (fixed effects hazard ratio, HRfixed = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (95%CI):0.66,0.91; p values = 0.002); rs12910509, HRfixed = 0.76; 95%CI:0.64,0.91; p values = 0.003); and rs8041922 (HRfixed = 0.76; 95%CI:0.64,0.91; p values = 0.002). These SNPs were in linkage disequilibrium with each other. In ALDH1B1, rs10973794 (HRfixed = 1.43; 95%CI:1.14,1.79; p values = 0.002) was associated with prostate cancer mortality in men with low‐grade prostate cancer. These results suggest that alcohol consumption is unlikely to affect prostate cancer incidence, but it may influence disease progression.
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 | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".