MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580791746 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-16-0728

Genetic Variants in Epigenetic Pathways and Risks of Multiple Cancers in the GAME-ON Consortium

2017· article· en· W2580791746 on OpenAlexaff
Réka Tóth, Dominique Scherer, Linda E. Kelemen, Angela Risch, Aditi Hazra, Yesilda Balavarca, Jean‐Pierre J. Issa, Vı́ctor Moreno, Rosalind A. Eeles, Shuji Ogino, Xifeng Wu, Yuanqing Ye, Ellen L. Goode, Cornelia M. Ulrich

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Cancer InstituteCancer Research UKNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsOncologyBreast cancerInternal medicineProstate cancerProstateSingle-nucleotide polymorphismOvarian cancerEpigeneticsMedicineBiologyCancerGeneGenotypeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Epigenetic disturbances are crucial in cancer initiation, potentially with pleiotropic effects, and may be influenced by the genetic background. Methods: In a subsets (ASSET) meta-analytic approach, we investigated associations of genetic variants related to epigenetic mechanisms with risks of breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian and prostate carcinomas using 51,724 cases and 52,001 controls. False discovery rate–corrected P values (q values < 0.05) were considered statistically significant. Results: Among 162,887 imputed or genotyped variants in 555 candidate genes, SNPs in eight genes were associated with risk of more than one cancer type. For example, variants in BABAM1 were confirmed as a susceptibility locus for squamous cell lung, overall breast, estrogen receptor (ER)–negative breast, and overall prostate, and overall serous ovarian cancer; the most significant variant was rs4808076 [OR = 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10–1.19; q = 6.87 × 10−5]. DPF1 rs12611084 was inversely associated with ER-negative breast, endometrioid ovarian, and overall and aggressive prostate cancer risk (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.91–0.96; q = 0.005). Variants in L3MBTL3 were associated with colorectal, overall breast, ER-negative breast, clear cell ovarian, and overall and aggressive prostate cancer risk (e.g., rs9388766: OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03–1.08; q = 0.02). Variants in TET2 were significantly associated with overall breast, overall prostate, overall ovarian, and endometrioid ovarian cancer risk, with rs62331150 showing bidirectional effects. Analyses of subpathways did not reveal gene subsets that contributed disproportionately to susceptibility. Conclusions: Functional and correlative studies are now needed to elucidate the potential links between germline genotype, epigenetic function, and cancer etiology. Impact: This approach provides novel insight into possible pleiotropic effects of genes involved in epigenetic processes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 816–25. ©2017 AACR.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207