A multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis investigating smoking and alcohol consumption in oral and oropharyngeal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The independent effects of smoking and alcohol in head and neck cancer are not clear, given the strong association between these risk factors. Their apparent synergistic effect reported in previous observational studies may also underestimate independent effects. Here we report multivariable Mendelian randomization performed in a two-sample approach using summary data on 6,034 oral/oropharyngeal cases and 6,585 controls from a recent genome-wide association study. Our results demonstrate strong evidence for an independent causal effect of smoking on oral/oropharyngeal cancer (IVW OR 2.6, 95% CI = 1.7, 3.9 per standard deviation increase in lifetime smoking behaviour) and an independent causal effect of alcohol consumption when controlling for smoking (IVW OR 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.8 per standard deviation increase in drinks consumed per week). This suggests the possibility that the causal effect of alcohol may have been underestimated. However, the extent to which alcohol is modified by smoking requires further investigation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".