MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794038966 · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2018.03.007

Interactions Between Genetic Variants and Environmental Factors Affect Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s Esophagus

2018· article· en· W2794038966 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Dong, David Levine, Matthew F. Buas, Rui Zhang, Lynn Onstad, Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, Douglas A. Corley, Nicholas J. Shaheen, Jesper Lagergren, Laura J. Hardie, Brian J. Reid, Prasad G. Iyer, Harvey A. Risch, Carlos Caldas, Isabel Caldas, Paul D.P. Pharoah, Geoffrey Liu, Marilie D. Gammon, Wong‐Ho Chow, Leslie Bernstein, Nigel C. Bird, Weimin Ye, Anna H. Wu, Lesley Anderson, Stuart MacGregor, David C. Whiteman, Thomas L. Vaughan, Aaron P. Thrift

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreCancer Council QueenslandCancer Research UKNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Research CouncilNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCancer Prevention and Research Institute of TexasMedical Research CouncilNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesJames Cook UniversityNational Cancer InstituteUniversity College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchHealth Research BoardRoswell Park Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGERDMedicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismOdds ratioBarrett's esophagusGenome-wide association studyInternal medicineGastroenterologyBody mass indexEsophagusGenotypeCase-control studyAdenocarcinomaOncologyCancerGeneticsDiseaseRefluxBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background & Aims Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 20 susceptibility loci for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) and Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, variants in these loci account for a small fraction of cases of EA and BE. Genetic factors might interact with environmental factors to affect risk of EA and BE. We aimed to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that may modify the associations of body mass index (BMI), smoking, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), with risks of EA and BE. Methods We collected data on single BMI measurements, smoking status, and symptoms of GERD from 2284 patients with EA, 3104 patients with BE, and 2182 healthy individuals (controls) participating in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium GWAS, the UK Barrett's Esophagus Gene Study, and the UK Stomach and Oesophageal Cancer Study. We analyzed 993,501 SNPs in DNA samples of all study subjects. We used standard case–control logistic regression to test for gene-environment interactions. Results For EA, rs13429103 at chromosome 2p25.1, near the RNF144A-LOC339788 gene, showed a borderline significant interaction with smoking status ( P = 2.18×10 -7 ). Ever smoking was associated with an almost 12-fold increase in risk of EA among individuals with rs13429103-AA genotype (odds ratio=11.82; 95% CI, 4.03–34.67). Three SNPs (rs12465911, rs2341926, rs13396805) at chromosome 2q23.3, near the RND3-RBM43 gene, interacted with GERD symptoms ( P = 1.70×10 -7 , P = 1.83×10 -7 , and P = 3.58×10 -7 , respectively) to affect risk of EA. For BE, rs491603 at chromosome 1p34.3, near the EIF2C3 gene, and rs11631094 at chromosome 15q14, at the SLC12A6 gene, interacted with BMI ( P = 4.44×10 -7 ) and pack-years of smoking history ( P = 2.82×10 -7 ), respectively. Conclusion The associations of BMI, smoking, and GERD symptoms with risks of EA and BE appear to vary with SNPs at chromosomes 1, 2, and 15. Validation of these suggestive interactions is warranted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207