Ability of known susceptibility SNPs to predict colorectal cancer risk for persons with and without a family history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background A number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are common inherited genetic variants, have been identified that are associated with risk of colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the ability of these SNPs to estimate colorectal cancer (CRC) risk for persons with and without a family history of CRC, and the screening implications. Methods We estimated the association with CRC of a 45 SNP-based risk using 1,181 cases and 999 controls, and its correlation ( r ) with CRC risk predicted from detailed family history. We estimated the predicted change in the distribution across predefined risk categories, and implications for recommended age to commence screening, from adding SNP-based risk to family history. Results The inter-quintile risk ratio for colorectal cancer risk of the SNP-based risk was 2.46 (95% CI 1.91 – 3.11). SNP-based and family history-based risks were not correlated ( r = 0.02). For persons with no first-degree relatives with CRC, recommended screening would commence 2 years earlier for women (4 years for men) in the highest quintile of SNP-based risk, and 12 years later for women (7 years for men) in the lowest quintile. For persons with two first-degree relatives with CRC, recommended screening would commence 15 years earlier for men and women in the highest quintile, and 8 years earlier for men and women in the lowest quintile. Conclusions Risk reclassification by 45 SNPs could inform targeted screening for CRC prevention, particularly in clinical genetics settings when mutations in high-risk genes cannot be identified.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".