Allergy, asthma, and the risk of breast and prostate cancer: a Mendelian randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The relationship of allergic diseases, such as asthma, hay fever, and eczema, with cancer is under debate. Observational studies have reported conflicting findings, but such studies are susceptible to confounding and reverse causation. Understanding the potential role of allergy in carcinogenesis may shed new light on the biological mechanisms underpinning intrinsic immunity and cancer. Methods We conducted a Mendelian randomization study, using germline genetic variants as instrumental variables, to determine the causal relevance of allergic disease and on two most common malignancies: breast cancer and prostate cancer. We used the summary statistics from the largest ever genome-wide association studies conducted on allergic disease ( n case = 180,129), asthma ( n case = 14,085), breast ( n case = 122,977), and prostate cancer ( n case = 79,148) and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of cancer for allergic disease. Results We did not observe any evidence to support a causal association between allergic disease and risk of breast cancer overall [OR 1.00 (95% CI 0.96–1.04), p = 0.95] or by subtype (estrogen receptor (ER)+ [0.99 (0.95–1.04), p = 0.71], ER− [1.05 (0.99–1.10), p = 0.11]). We also did not find any evidence for an association with prostate cancer [1.00 (0.94–1.05), p = 0.93] or advanced subtype [0.97 (0.90–1.05), p = 0.46]. Sensitivity analyses did not reveal directional pleiotropy. Conclusion Our study does not support a causal effect of allergic disease on the risk of breast or prostate cancer. Future studies may be conducted to focus on understanding the causal role of allergic disease in cancer prognosis or drug responses (e.g., immunotherapy).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".