Common Susceptibility Loci for Male Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The etiology of male breast cancer (MBC) is poorly understood. In particular, the extent to which the genetic basis of MBC differs from female breast cancer (FBC) is unknown. A previous genome-wide association study of MBC identified 2 predisposition loci for the disease, both of which were also associated with risk of FBC. METHODS: We performed genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping of European ancestry MBC case subjects and controls in 3 stages. Associations between directly genotyped and imputed single nucleotide polymorphisms with MBC were assessed using fixed-effects meta-analysis of 1380 cases and 3620 controls. Replication genotyping of 810 cases and 1026 controls was used to validate variants with P values less than 1 × 10-06. Genetic correlation with FBC was evaluated using linkage disequilibrium score regression, by comprehensively examining the associations of published FBC risk loci with risk of MBC and by assessing associations between a FBC polygenic risk score and MBC. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: The genome-wide association study identified 3 novel MBC susceptibility loci that attained genome-wide statistical significance (P < 5 × 10-08). Genetic correlation analysis revealed a strong shared genetic basis with estrogen receptor-positive FBC. Men in the top quintile of genetic risk had a fourfold increased risk of breast cancer relative to those in the bottom quintile (odds ratio = 3.86, 95% confidence interval = 3.07 to 4.87, P = 2.08 × 10-30). CONCLUSIONS: These findings advance our understanding of the genetic basis of MBC, providing support for an overlapping genetic etiology with FBC and identifying a fourfold high-risk group of susceptible men.
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".