Association of Body Mass Index With Colorectal Cancer Risk by Genome-Wide Variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) is a complex phenotype that may interact with genetic variants to influence colorectal cancer risk. METHODS: We tested multiplicative statistical interactions between BMI (per 5 kg/m2) and approximately 2.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms with colorectal cancer risk among 14 059 colorectal cancer case (53.2% women) and 14 416 control (53.8% women) participants. All analyses were stratified by sex a priori. Statistical methods included 2-step (ie, Cocktail method) and single-step (ie, case-control logistic regression and a joint 2-degree of freedom test) procedures. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Each 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with higher risks of colorectal cancer, less so for women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.14, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.11 to 1.18; P = 9.75 × 10-17) than for men (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.32; P = 2.13 × 10-24). The 2-step Cocktail method identified an interaction for women, but not men, between BMI and a SMAD7 intronic variant at 18q21.1 (rs4939827; Pobserved = .0009; Pthreshold = .005). A joint 2-degree of freedom test was consistent with this finding for women (joint P = 2.43 × 10-10). Each 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was more strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk for women with the rs4939827-CC genotype (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.32; P = 2.60 × 10-10) than for women with the CT (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.19; P = 1.04 × 10-8) or TT (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.14; P = .02) genotypes. CONCLUSION: These results provide novel insights on a potential mechanism through which a SMAD7 variant, previously identified as a susceptibility locus for colorectal cancer, and BMI may influence colorectal cancer risk for women.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".