Pro-inflammatory fatty acid profile and colorectal cancer risk: A Mendelian randomisation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background While dietary fat has been established as a risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), associations between fatty acids (FAs) and CRC have been inconsistent. Using Mendelian randomisation (MR), we sought to evaluate associations between polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated (MUFA) and saturated FAs (SFAs) and CRC risk. Methods We analysed genotype data on 9254 CRC cases and 18,386 controls of European ancestry. Externally weighted polygenic risk scores were generated and used to evaluate associations with CRC per one standard deviation increase in genetically defined plasma FA levels. Results Risk reduction was observed for oleic and palmitoleic MUFAs (OROA = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65–0.92, P = 3.9 × 10−3; ORPOA = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.15–0.84, P = 0.018). PUFAs linoleic and arachidonic acid had negative and positive associations with CRC respectively (ORLA = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93–0.98, P = 3.7 × 10−4; ORAA = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02–1.07, P = 1.7 × 10−4). The SFA stearic acid was associated with increased CRC risk (ORSA = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.35, P = 0.041). Conclusion Results from our analysis are broadly consistent with a pro-inflammatory FA profile having a detrimental effect in terms of CRC risk.
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 | 0.034 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".