Smoking Methylation Marks for Prediction of Urothelial Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Self-reported information may not accurately capture smoking exposure. We aimed to evaluate whether smoking-associated DNA methylation markers improve urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) risk prediction. Methods: Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between blood-based methylation and UCC risk using two matched case–control samples: 404 pairs from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) and 440 pairs from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) cohort. Results were pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. We developed methylation-based predictors of UCC and evaluated their prediction accuracy on two replication data sets using the area under the curve (AUC). Results: The meta-analysis identified associations (P < 4.7 × 10−5) for 29 of 1,061 smoking-associated methylation sites, but these were substantially attenuated after adjustment for self-reported smoking. Nominally significant associations (P < 0.05) were found for 387 (36%) and 86 (8%) of smoking-associated markers without/with adjustment for self-reported smoking, respectively, with same direction of association as with smoking for 387 (100%) and 79 (92%) markers. A Lasso-based predictor was associated with UCC risk in one replication data set in MCCS [N = 134; odds ratio per SD (OR) = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.00–1.90] after confounder adjustment; AUC = 0.66, compared with AUC = 0.64 without methylation information. Limited evidence of replication was found in the second testing data set in WHI (N = 440; OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91–1.30). Conclusions: Combination of smoking-associated methylation marks may provide some improvement to UCC risk prediction. Our findings need further evaluation using larger data sets. Impact: DNA methylation may be associated with UCC risk beyond traditional smoking assessment and could contribute to some improvements in stratification of UCC risk in the general population.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".