Refining the genetic risk of breast cancer with rare haplotypes and pattern mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hundreds of common variants have been found to confer small but significant differences in breast cancer risk, supporting the widely accepted polygenic model of inherited predisposition. Using a novel closed-pattern mining algorithm, we provide evidence that rare haplotypes may refine the association of breast cancer risk with common germline alleles. Our method, called Chromosome Overlap, consists in iteratively pairing chromosomes from affected individuals and looking for noncontiguous patterns of shared alleles. We applied Chromosome Overlap to haplotypes of genotyped SNPs from female breast cancer cases from the UK Biobank at four loci containing common breast cancer-risk SNPs. We found two rare (frequency <0.1%) haplotypes bearing a GWAS hit at 11q13 (hazard ratio = 4.21 and 16.7) which replicated in an independent, European ancestry population at P < 0.05, and another at 22q12 (frequency <0.2%, hazard ratio = 2.58) which expanded the risk pool to noncarriers of a GWAS hit. These results suggest that rare haplotypes (or mutations) may underlie the “synthetic association” of breast cancer risk with at least some common variants.
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".