Elevated Platelet Count Appears to Be Causally Associated with Increased Risk of Lung Cancer: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Platelets are a critical element in coagulation and inflammation, and activated platelets are linked to cancer risk through diverse mechanisms. However, a causal relationship between platelets and risk of lung cancer remains unclear. Methods: We performed single and combined multiple instrumental variable Mendelian randomization analysis by an inverse-weighted method, in addition to a series of sensitivity analyses. Summary data for associations between SNPs and platelet count are from a recent publication that included 48,666 Caucasian Europeans, and the International Lung Cancer Consortium and Transdisciplinary Research in Cancer of the Lung data consisting of 29,266 cases and 56,450 controls to analyze associations between candidate SNPs and lung cancer risk. Results: Multiple instrumental variable analysis incorporating six SNPs showed a 62% increased risk of overall non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC; OR, 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15–2.27; P = 0.005] and a 200% increased risk for small-cell lung cancer (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.27–7.06; P = 0.01). Results showed only a trending association with NSCLC histologic subtypes, which may be due to insufficient sample size and/or weak effect size. A series of sensitivity analysis retained these findings. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a causal relationship between elevated platelet count and increased risk of lung cancer and provide evidence of possible antiplatelet interventions for lung cancer prevention. Impact: These findings provide a better understanding of lung cancer etiology and potential evidence for antiplatelet interventions for lung cancer prevention.
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 | 0.033 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".