Using Genetic Variants to Evaluate the Causal Effect of Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids on Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies indicate that phospholipid fatty acids (FAs) have an impact on the etiology in cancers, but the results are conflicting. We aimed to investigate the causal association of phospholipid FAs with breast cancer and prostate cancer. METHODS: Fourteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected as instrumental variables to predict the level of 10 phospholipid FAs from Genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We obtained the summary statistics for the latest and largest GWAS datasets for breast cancer (113,789 controls and 133,384 cases) and prostate cancer (61,106 controls and 79,148 cases) from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium. Two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis was applied. RESULTS: The results demonstrate that the 10 individual plasma phospholipid FAs are not significantly associated with breast cancer risk and prostate cancer risk. CONCLUSION: The evidence is insufficient to support the causal association of the 10 individual plasma phospholipid FAs with breast cancer and prostate cancer.
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".