Combining genome-wide studies of breast, prostate, ovarian and endometrial cancers maps cross-cancer susceptibility loci and identifies new genetic associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We report a meta-analysis of breast, prostate, ovarian, and endometrial cancer genome-wide association data (effective sample size: 237,483 cases/317,006 controls). This identified 465 independent lead variants ( P <5×10 −8 ) across 192 genomic regions. Four lead variants were >1Mb from previously identified risk loci for the four cancers and an additional 23 lead variant-cancer associations were novel for one of the cancers. Bayesian models supported pleiotropic effects involving at least two cancers at 222/465 lead variants in 118/192 regions. Gene-level association analysis identified 13 shared susceptibility genes ( P <2.6×10 −6 ) in 13 regions not previously implicated in any of the four cancers and not uncovered by our variant-level meta-analysis. Several lead variants had opposite effects across cancers, including a cluster of such variants in the TP53 pathway. Fifty-four lead variants were associated with blood cell traits and suggested genetic overlaps with clonal hematopoiesis. Our study highlights the remarkable pervasiveness of pleiotropy across hormone-related cancers, further illuminating their shared genetic and mechanistic origins at variant- and gene-level resolution.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".