Lipid Trait Variants and the Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Subtypes: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Lipid traits have been inconsistently linked to risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). We examined the association of genetically predicted lipid traits with risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) using Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. Methods: Genome-wide association study data from the InterLymph Consortium were available for 2,661 DLBCLs, 2,179 CLLs, 2,142 FLs, 824 MZLs, and 6,221 controls. SNPs associated (P < 5 × 10−8) with high-density lipoprotein (HDL, n = 164), low-density lipoprotein (LDL, n = 137), total cholesterol (TC, n = 161), and triglycerides (TG, n = 123) were used as instrumental variables (IV), explaining 14.6%, 27.7%, 16.8%, and 12.8% of phenotypic variation, respectively. Associations between each lipid trait and NHL subtype were calculated using the MR inverse variance–weighted method, estimating odds ratios (OR) per standard deviation and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: HDL was positively associated with DLBCL (OR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00–1.30) and MZL (OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01–1.18), while TG was inversely associated with MZL risk (OR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–0.99), all at nominal significance (P < 0.05). A positive trend was observed for HDL with FL risk (OR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99–1.19; P = 0.087). No associations were noteworthy after adjusting for multiple testing. Conclusions: We did not find evidence of a clear or strong association of these lipid traits with the most common NHL subtypes. While these IVs have been previously linked to other cancers, our findings do not support any causal associations with these NHL subtypes. Impact: Our results suggest that prior reported inverse associations of lipid traits are not likely to be causal and could represent reverse causality or confounding.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".