MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887371040 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-245

Abstract 245: Genetic variation related to innate immunity and colorectal cancer risk

2018· article· en· W2887371040 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Citronberg, Barbara L. Banbury, Andrew T. Chan, Peter T. Campbell, Graham Casey, Jenny Chang‐Claude, Steven Gallinger, Tabitha A. Harrison, Michael Hoffmeister, Mark A. Jenkins, Loı̈c Le Marchand, Hongmei Nan, Li Jiao, Robert E. Schoen, Hermann Brenner, Emily White, Polly A. Newcomb

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismColorectal cancerMedicineMinor allele frequencyOncologyInternal medicineCancerProstate cancerPopulationLogistic regressionBiologyGeneticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Previous studies have shown that polymorphisms in the Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) gene may be associated with obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, and various cancers, including prostate, breast, and gastric cancer. However, the data regarding the associations between various TLR4 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk are inconsistent. In addition, the effect of interactions between TLR4 SNPs and obesity on the risk of CRC remains unclear. Methods: We selected candidate SNPs involved in the TLR4 pathway that were previously associated with the risk of CRC or other cancer (N=31). SNPs with low minor allele frequency (MAF < 0.05) were excluded (N=2), leaving 29 SNPs in the main analysis. We examined the associations of these SNPs with CRC risk using logistic regression on 10,998 cases of colorectal cancer and 10,691 controls drawn from 14 studies within the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) and the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR). BMI was dichotomized into non-obese (BMI ≤25) and obese (BMI >25) categories. Overall and BMI-stratified analyses were performed across studies, with regression models adjusting for sex, age, study site, and the first three principal components from EIGENSTRAT to account for potential population substructure. A false discovery rate at 0.2 was applied to correct for multiple testing. Results: Before adjustment for multiple comparisons, TLR4 SNPs rs10116253, rs11536891, rs7873784, rs1927911, rs4986791, and rs4986790 were associated with CRC risk. Additionally, for both rs4986791 and rs4986790, this association was more pronounced in those with a BMI ≤25 (rs4986791 - OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.02-1.34; rs4986790 - OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.04-1.38) compared to those who had a BMI >25 (rs4986791 - OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.93-1.15; rs4986790 - OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.92-1.15). However, after accounting for multiple comparisons, there were no statistically significant associations between candidate SNPs and CRC nor any statistically significant SNP interactions with BMI. Conclusion: This large study provides evidence that neither these identified TLR4 SNPs nor their interaction with obesity are associated with CRC risk. Citation Format: Jessica Citronberg, Barbara Banbury, Andrew T. Chan, Peter T. Campbell, Graham Casey, Jenny Chang-Claude, Steven J. Gallinger, Tabitha Harrison, Michael Hoffmeister, Mark A. Jenkins, Loic Le Marchand, Hongmei Nan, Hongmei Nan, Li Jiao, Robert E. Schoen, Hermann Brenner, Emily White, Ulrike Peters, Polly A. Newcomb. Genetic variation related to innate immunity and colorectal cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 245.

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)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research→French-language works237,207→