The shared genetic architecture between epidemiological and behavioral traits with lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The complex polygenic nature of lung cancer is not fully characterized. Our study seeks to identify novel phenotypes associated with lung cancer using cross-trait linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSR). We measured pairwise genetic correlation (rg) and SNP heritability (h2) between 347 traits and lung cancer risk using genome-wide association study summary statistics from the UKBB and OncoArray consortium. Further, we conducted analysis after removing genomic regions previously associated with smoking behaviors to mitigate potential confounding effects. We found significant negative genetic correlations between lung cancer risk and dietary behaviors, fitness metrics, educational attainment, and other psychosocial traits. Alcohol taken with meals (rg = − 0.41, h2 = 0.10, p = 1.33 × 10–16), increased fluid intelligence scores (rg = − 0.25, h2 = 0.22, p = 4.54 × 10–8), and the age at which full time education was completed (rg = − 0.45, h2 = 0.11, p = 1.24 × 10–20) demonstrated negative genetic correlation with lung cancer susceptibility. The body mass index was positively correlated with lung cancer risk (rg = 0.20, h2 = 0.25, p = 2.61 × 10–9). This analysis reveals shared genetic architecture between several traits and lung cancer predisposition. Future work should test for causal relationships and investigate common underlying genetic mechanisms across these genetically correlated traits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".