MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914767211 · doi:10.1101/528968

Sex Differences in Oncogenic Mutational Processes

2019· preprint· en· W2914767211 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchGenome Canada
KeywordsColorectal cancerMicrosatellite instabilityCancerGermline mutationGermlineExomeGenomeHead and neck cancerEpidemiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sex differences have been observed in multiple facets of cancer epidemiology, treatment and biology, and in most cancers outside the sex organs. Efforts to link these clinical differences to specific molecular features have focused on somatic mutations within the coding regions of the genome. Here, we describe the first pan-cancer analysis of sex differences in whole genomes of 1,983 tumours of 28 subtypes from the ICGC Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes project. We both confirm the results of exome studies, and also uncover previously undescribed sex differences. These include sex-biases in coding and non-coding cancer drivers, mutation prevalence and strikingly, in mutational signatures related to underlying mutational processes. These results underline the pervasiveness of molecular sex differences and strengthen the call for increased consideration of sex in cancer research. Sex disparities in cancer epidemiology include an increased overall cancer risk in males corresponding with higher incidence in most tumor types, even after adjusting for known risk factors 1,2 . Cancer mortality is also higher in males, due in part to better survival for female patients in many cancer types, including those of the colon and head & neck 3 . Interestingly, female colorectal cancer patients respond better to surgery 4 and adjuvant chemotherapy, though this is partially due to biases in tumour location and microsatellite instability 5 . Similarly, premenopausal female nasopharyngeal cancer patients have improved survival regardless of tumour stage, radiation or chemotherapy regimen 6 . There is a growing body of evidence for sex differences in cancer genomics 7-13 , but their molecular origins and clinical implications remain largely elusive. Previous studies have mostly focused on protein coding regions, leaving the vast majority of the genome unexplored. We hypothesized that there are uncharacterized sex differences in the non-coding regions of the genome. Using whole genome sequencing data from the Pan-cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) project 14 , we performed a survey of sex-biased mutations in 1,983 samples (1,213 male, 770 female) from 28 tumour subtypes, excluding those of the sex organs ( Supplementary Table 1 ). We also excluded the X and Y chromosomes to focus on autosomal sex differences in cancers affecting both men and women, but there are known to be significant X-chromosome mutational differences between tumours arising in men and women 15 . Our analysis revealed sex differences in both genome-wide phenomena and in specific genes. These sex-biases occur not only at the pan-cancer level across all 1,983 samples, but also in individual tumour subtypes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207