Assessment of Polygenic Architecture and Risk Prediction based on Common Variants Across Fourteen Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We analyzed summary-level data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of European ancestry across fourteen cancer sites to estimate the number of common susceptibility variants (polygenicity) contributing to risk, as well as the distribution of their associated effect sizes. All cancers evaluated showed polygenicity, involving at a minimum thousands of independent susceptibility variants. For some malignancies, particularly chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) and testicular cancer, there are a larger proportion of variants with larger effect sizes than those for other cancers. In contrast, most variants for lung and breast cancers have very small associated effect sizes. For different cancer sites, we estimate a wide range of GWAS sample sizes, required to explain 80% of GWAS heritability, varying from 60,000 cases for CLL to over 1,000,000 cases for lung cancer. The maximum relative risk achievable for subjects at the 99th risk percentile of underlying polygenic risk scores, compared to average risk, ranges from 12 for testicular to 2.5 for ovarian cancer. We show that polygenic risk scores have substantial potential for risk stratification for relatively common cancers such as breast, prostate and colon, but limited potential for other cancer sites because of modest heritability and lower disease incidence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".