MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811218393 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-0113

Reassessing the Association between Circulating Vitamin D and IGFBP-3: Observational and Mendelian Randomization Estimates from Independent Sources

2018· article· en· W2811218393 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vanessa Y. Tan, Kalina Biernacka, Tom Dudding, Carolina Bonilla, Rebecca Gilbert, Robert C. Kaplan, Qibin Qi, Alexander Teumer, Richard M. Martin, Claire M. Perks, Nicholas J. Timpson, Jeff M.P. Holly

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMedical Research CouncilUniversity of BristolNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKNational Cancer Research InstituteUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustWellcome TrustNational Institutes of HealthOvarian Cancer Research FundRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustCancer Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcomeBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsMendelian randomizationProstate cancerMedicineInternal medicineOncologyCausal inferenceVitamin D and neurologyObservational studyCancerGynecologyPathologyBiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Circulating insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) has been associated with prostate cancer. Preclinical studies found that vitamin D regulates IGFBP-3 expression, although evidence from epidemiologic studies is conflicting. Methods: Mendelian randomization analyses (MR) were conducted to reassess associations between IGFBP-3 and prostate cancer risk and advanced prostate cancer using summary statistics from the PRACTICAL consortium (44,825 cases; 27,904 controls). Observational and MR analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between inactive vitamin D [25(OH)D] and IGFBP-3 using data from the ProtecT study (1,366 cases;1,071 controls) and summary statistics from the CHARGE consortium (n = 18,995). Results: The OR for prostate cancer per SD unit increase in circulating IGFBP-3 was 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02–1.28]. The OR for advanced prostate cancer per SD unit increase in IGFBP-3 was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.07–1.40). Observationally, a SD increase in 25(OH)D was associated with a 0.1SD (95% CI, 0.05–0.14) increase in IGFBP-3. MR analyses found little evidence for a causal relationship between circulating 25(OH)D and IGFBP-3 in the circulation. Conclusions: This study provided confirmatory evidence that IGFBP-3 is a risk factor for prostate cancer risk and progression. Observationally, there was evidence that 25(OH)D is associated with IGFBP-3, but MR analyses suggested that these findings were unlikely to be causal. Findings may be limited by the nature of instrumentation of 25(OH)D and IGFBP-3 and the utility of circulating measures. 25(OH)D appears unlikely to be causally related to IGFBP-3 in the circulation, however, our findings do not preclude causal associations at the tissue level. Impact: IGFBP-3 is a prostate cancer risk factor but 25(OH)D are unlikely to be causally related to IGFBP-3 in the circulation.

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)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207