MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998049151 · doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000872

Impact of glycemic traits, type 2 diabetes and metformin use on breast and prostate cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization study

2019· article· en· W2998049151 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shiu Lun Au Yeung, C. Mary Schooling

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCommon FundDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer InstituteNational Cancer InstituteNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institute on Drug AbuseNIH Office of the DirectorCancer Council VictoriaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteVetenskapsrådetNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGenome CanadaOvarian Cancer Research FundProstate Cancer Foundation of AustraliaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCancer Research InstituteNational Cancer Research InstituteRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustNational Institutes of HealthRosetrees TrustEuropean CommissionNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeBreast Cancer Research FoundationPancreatic Cancer UKProstate Cancer FoundationMedical Research CouncilSwedish Cancer FoundationNational Institute of Mental HealthHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeCancer Research UKGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMendelian randomizationMedicineMetforminBreast cancerType 2 diabetesOncologyProstate cancerInternal medicineConfoundingDiabetes mellitusCancerGynecologyEndocrinologyInsulinGeneticsGenotypeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Observational studies suggest glycemic traits and type 2 diabetes are positively associated, and metformin inversely associated with breast and prostate cancer risk. However, observational studies are susceptible to unmeasured confounding while studies of metformin use are also vulnerable to immortal time bias. The use of Mendelian randomization may reduce confounding due to random allocation of relevant genetic markers at birth, and may reduce immortal time bias (for metformin-related variants analysis) since the start of exposure is at birth. Research design and methods We identified strong genetic predictors of fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and type 2 diabetes from the Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium and Diabetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis Consortium (n=140 595 for glucose; n=123 665 for HbA1c; n=898 130 for type 2 diabetes) and of AMPK-instrumented HbA1c reduction as a proxy of metformin and applied them to large genome-wide association studies of breast cancer (Breast Cancer Association Consortium; BCAC) and prostate cancer (Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer-Associated Alterations in the Genome; PRACTICAL). We used inverse variance weighting to obtain estimates. Sensitivity analyses included use of MR-Egger, weighted median, exclusion of pleiotropic instruments, and validation using UK Biobank (breast cancer only). Results There was no association of fasting glucose (OR 1.03 per mmol/L, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25), HbA1c (OR 1.02 per %, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.45), or type 2 diabetes (OR 0.98 per log odds, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01) with breast cancer in BCAC, with similar findings from UK Biobank. There was no association of fasting glucose (OR 0.93 per mmol/L, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.17), HbA1c (OR 0.90 per %, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.40) or type 2 diabetes (OR 1.02 per log odds, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07) with prostate cancer in PRACTICAL. No strong evidence was observed for AMPK-instrumented HbA1c reduction on cancer risk. Conclusion Glycemic traits and type 2 diabetes unlikely cause breast and prostate cancer. Whether metformin can be repurposed for cancer prevention remains unclear.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Diabetes Research & CareSame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207