Assessing the role of genome-wide DNA methylation between smoking and risk of lung cancer using repeated measurements: the HUNT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear if smoking-related DNA methylation represents a causal pathway between smoking and risk of lung cancer. We sought to identify novel smoking-related DNA methylation sites in blood, with repeated measurements, and to appraise the putative role of DNA methylation in the pathway between smoking and lung cancer development. METHODS: We derived a nested case-control study from the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT), including 140 incident patients who developed lung cancer during 2009-13 and 140 controls. We profiled 850 K DNA methylation sites (Illumina Infinium EPIC array) in DNA extracted from blood that was collected in HUNT2 (1995-97) and HUNT3 (2006-08) for the same individuals. Epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) were performed for a detailed smoking phenotype and for lung cancer. Two-step Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses were performed to assess the potential causal effect of smoking on DNA methylation as well as of DNA methylation (13 sites as putative mediators) on risk of lung cancer. RESULTS: The EWAS for smoking in HUNT2 identified associations at 76 DNA methylation sites (P < 5 × 10-8), including 16 novel sites. Smoking was associated with DNA hypomethylation in a dose-response relationship among 83% of the 76 sites, which was confirmed by analyses using repeated measurements from blood that was collected at 11 years apart for the same individuals. Two-step MR analyses showed evidence for a causal effect of smoking on DNA methylation but no evidence for a causal link between DNA methylation and the risk of lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: DNA methylation modifications in blood did not seem to represent a causal pathway linking smoking and the lung cancer risk.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".