Associations between Genetically Predicted Circulating Protein Concentrations and Endometrial Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endometrial cancer (EC) is the leading female reproductive tract malignancy in developed countries. Currently, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 17 risk loci for EC. To identify novel EC-associated proteins, we used previously reported protein quantitative trait loci for 1434 plasma proteins as instruments to evaluate associations between genetically predicted circulating protein concentrations and EC risk. We studied 12,906 cases and 108,979 controls of European descent included in the Endometrial Cancer Association Consortium, the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium, and the UK Biobank. We observed associations between genetically predicted concentrations of nine proteins and EC risk at a false discovery rate of <0.05 (p-values range from 1.14 × 10−10 to 3.04 × 10−4). Except for vascular cell adhesion protein 1, all other identified proteins were independent from known EC risk variants identified in EC GWAS. The respective odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) per one standard deviation increase in genetically predicted circulating protein concentrations were 1.21 (1.13, 1.30) for DNA repair protein RAD51 homolog 4, 1.27 (1.14, 1.42) for desmoglein-2, 1.14 (1.07, 1.22) for MHC class I polypeptide-related sequence B, 1.05 (1.02, 1.08) for histo-blood group ABO system transferase, 0.77 (0.68, 0.89) for intestinal-type alkaline phosphatase, 0.82 (0.74, 0.91) for carbohydrate sulfotransferase 15, 1.07 (1.03, 1.11) for D-glucuronyl C5-epimerase, and 1.07 (1.03, 1.10) for CD209 antigen. In conclusion, we identified nine potential EC-associated proteins. If validated by additional studies, our findings may contribute to understanding the pathogenesis of endometrial tumor development and identifying women at high risk of EC along with other EC risk factors and biomarkers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".