Genetically inferred birthweight, height, and puberty timing and risk of osteosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several studies have linked increased risk of osteosarcoma with tall stature, high birthweight, and early puberty, although evidence is inconsistent. We used genetic risk scores (GRS) based on established genetic loci for these traits and evaluated associations between genetically inferred birthweight, height, and puberty timing with osteosarcoma. METHODS: Using genotype data from two genome-wide association studies, totaling 1039 cases and 2923 controls of European ancestry, association analyses were conducted using logistic regression for each study and meta-analyzed to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted by case diagnosis age, metastasis status, tumor location, tumor histology, and presence of a known pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene. RESULTS: ). Although there was no overall association between osteosarcoma and genetically inferred taller stature (OR=1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.17, P = 0.28), the GRS for taller stature was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma in 154 cases with a known pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant (OR=1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.63, P = 0.03). There were no significant associations between the GRS for puberty timing and osteosarcoma. CONCLUSION: A genetic propensity to higher birthweight was associated with increased osteosarcoma risk, suggesting that shared genetic factors or biological pathways that affect birthweight may contribute to osteosarcoma pathogenesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".