Ethnic differences of genetic risk and smoking in lung cancer: two prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The relative risk of smoking on lung cancer have been reported to be much higher in white population than that in East Asians. However, it’s unknown whether genetic background underlies this disparity between ethnic groups. To assess the role of ethnic differences in genetic factors associated with this phenomenon. Methods We first constructed ethnic-specific polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to quantify individual genetic risk of lung cancer in Chinese and white populations. Then, we compared genetic risk and smoking as well as their interactions on lung cancer between two cohorts, including the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB) and the UK Biobank (UKB). We also evaluated the absolute risk reduction over a 5-year period. Results 19 SNPs and 23 SNPs were identified to construct the PRSs in Chinese and white populations, and smoking-related loci were only included in white populations. The PRSs were consistently associated with lung cancer risk respectively, but stronger associations were observed in smokers of the UKB (HR 1.26 versus 1.15, P =0.028). A significant interaction between genetic risk and smoking on lung cancer was observed in the UKB (RERI, 11.39 [95% CI, 7.01-17.94]), but not in the CKB. By comparing heavy smokers with nonsmokers, a greater absolute risk reduction was found in the UKB (10.95 versus 7.12 per 1000 person-years, P <0.001), especially for those at high genetic risk. Conclusions In China, tobacco control alone is not enough to reduce the burden of lung cancer, and comprehensive policies should be made to lower its high incidence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".