Risk factors for eight common cancers revealed from a phenome-wide Mendelian randomisation analysis of 378,142 cases and 485,715 controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many cancers there are few well-established risk factors. Summary data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) can be used in a Mendelian randomisation (MR) phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) to identify causal relationships. We performed a MR-PheWAS of breast, prostate, colorectal, lung, endometrial, oesophageal, renal, and ovarian cancers, comprising 378,142 cases and 485,715 controls. To derive a more comprehensive insight into disease aetiology we systematically mined the literature space for supporting evidence. We evaluated causal relationships for over 3,000 potential risk factors. In addition to identifying well-established risk factors (smoking, alcohol, obesity, lack of physical activity), we provide evidence for specific factors, including dietary intake, sex steroid hormones, plasma lipids and telomere length as determinants of cancer risk. We also implicate molecular factors including plasma levels of IL-18, LAG-3, IGF-1, CT-1, and PRDX1 as risk factors. Our analyses highlight the importance of risk factors that are common to many cancer types but also reveal aetiological differences. A number of the molecular factors we identify have the potential to be biomarkers. Our findings should aid public health prevention strategies to reduce cancer burden. We provide a R/Shiny app (https://mrcancer.shinyapps.io/mrcan/) to visualise findings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".