Genome‐wide association study of INDELs identified four novel susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 45 susceptibility loci associated with lung cancer. Only less than SNPs, small insertions and deletions (INDELs) are the second most abundant genetic polymorphisms in the human genome. INDELs are highly associated with multiple human diseases, including lung cancer. However, limited studies with large‐scale samples have been available to systematically evaluate the effects of INDELs on lung cancer risk. Here, we performed a large‐scale meta‐analysis to evaluate INDELs and their risk for lung cancer in 23,202 cases and 19,048 controls. Functional annotations were performed to further explore the potential function of lung cancer risk INDELs. Conditional analysis was used to clarify the relationship between INDELs and SNPs. Four new risk loci were identified in genome‐wide INDEL analysis (1p13.2: rs5777156, Insertion, OR = 0.92, p = 9.10 × 10−8; 4q28.2: rs58404727, Deletion, OR = 1.19, p = 5.25 × 10−7; 12p13.31: rs71450133, Deletion, OR = 1.09, p = 8.83 × 10−7; and 14q22.3: rs34057993, Deletion, OR = 0.90, p = 7.64 × 10−8). The eQTL analysis and functional annotation suggested that INDELs might affect lung cancer susceptibility by regulating the expression of target genes. After conducting conditional analysis on potential causal SNPs, the INDELs in the new loci were still nominally significant. Our findings indicate that INDELs could be potentially functional genetic variants for lung cancer risk. Further functional experiments are needed to better understand INDEL mechanisms in carcinogenesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".