Genetically Predicted Levels of DNA Methylation Biomarkers and Breast Cancer Risk: Data From 228 951 Women of European Descent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA methylation plays a critical role in breast cancer development. Previous studies have identified DNA methylation marks in white blood cells as promising biomarkers for breast cancer. However, these studies were limited by low statistical power and potential biases. Using a new methodology, we investigated DNA methylation marks for their associations with breast cancer risk. METHODS: Statistical models were built to predict levels of DNA methylation marks using genetic data and DNA methylation data from HumanMethylation450 BeadChip from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1595). The prediction models were validated using data from the Women's Health Initiative (n = 883). We applied these models to genomewide association study (GWAS) data of 122 977 breast cancer patients and 105 974 controls to evaluate if the genetically predicted DNA methylation levels at CpG sites (CpGs) are associated with breast cancer risk. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of the 62 938 CpG sites CpGs investigated, statistically significant associations with breast cancer risk were observed for 450 CpGs at a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P less than 7.94 × 10-7, including 45 CpGs residing in 18 genomic regions, that have not previously been associated with breast cancer risk. Of the remaining 405 CpGs located within 500 kilobase flaking regions of 70 GWAS-identified breast cancer risk variants, the associations for 11 CpGs were independent of GWAS-identified variants. Integrative analyses of genetic, DNA methylation, and gene expression data found that 38 CpGs may affect breast cancer risk through regulating expression of 21 genes. CONCLUSION: Our new methodology can identify novel DNA methylation biomarkers for breast cancer risk and can be applied to other diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".