Mendelian randomisation implicates hyperlipidaemia as a risk factor for colorectal cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While elevated blood cholesterol has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in observational studies, causality is uncertain. Here we apply a Mendelian randomisation (MR) analysis to examine the potential causal relationship between lipid traits and CRC risk. We used single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with blood levels of total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low‐density lipoprotein (LDL), and high‐density lipoprotein (HDL) as instrumental variables (IV). We calculated MR estimates for each risk factor with CRC using SNP‐CRC associations from 9,254 cases and 18,386 controls. Genetically predicted higher TC was associated with an elevated risk of CRC (odds ratios (OR) per unit SD increase = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–1.79, p = 1.68 × 10 −4 ). The pooled ORs for LDL, HDL, and TG were 1.05 (95% CI: 0.92–1.18, p = 0.49), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.84–1.05, p = 0.27), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85–1.12, p = 0.75) respectively. A genetic risk score for 3‐hydoxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐coenzyme A reductase ( HMGCR ) to mimic the effects of statin therapy was associated with a reduced CRC risk (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.49–0.99, p = 0.046). This study supports a causal relationship between higher levels of TC with CRC risk, and a further rationale for implementing public health strategies to reduce the prevalence of hyperlipidaemia.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it