Genome-wide association study and meta-analysis in Northern European populations replicate multiple colorectal cancer risk loci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies have been successful in elucidating the genetic basis of colorectal cancer (CRC), but there remains unexplained variability in genetic risk. To identify new risk variants and to confirm reported associations, we conducted a genome-wide association study in 1,701 CRC cases and 14,082 cancer-free controls from the Finnish population. A total of 9,068,015 genetic variants were imputed and tested, and 30 promising variants were studied in additional 11,647 cases and 12,356 controls of European ancestry. The previously reported association between the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs992157 (2q35) and CRC was independently replicated (p = 2.08 × 10-4; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23), and it was genome-wide significant in combined analysis (p = 1.50 × 10-9; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16). Variants at 2q35, 6p21.2, 8q23.3, 8q24.21, 10q22.3, 10q24.2, 11q13.4, 11q23.1, 14q22.2, 15q13.3, 18q21.1, 20p12.3 and 20q13.33 were associated with CRC in the Finnish population (false discovery rate < 0.1), but new risk loci were not found. These results replicate the effects of multiple loci on the risk of CRC and identify shared risk alleles between the Finnish population isolate and outbred populations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".