Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and survival outcomes of colorectal cancer: evidence from population-based prospective cohorts and Mendelian randomisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) survival outcomes. METHODS: We conducted analyses among the Study of Colorectal Cancer in Scotland (SOCCS) and the UK Biobank (UKBB). Both cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were examined. The 25-OHD levels were categorised into three groups, and multi-variable Cox-proportional hazard models were applied to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). We performed individual-level Mendelian randomisation (MR) through the generated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of 25-OHD and summary-level MR using the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method. RESULTS: ) in patients with the lowest compared to those with the highest 25-OHD after adjusting for covariates. These associations remained across patients with varied tumour sites and stages. However, we found no significant association between 25-OHD PRS and either CSS (HR = 0.98,95%CI = 0.80-1.19,P = 0.83) or OS (HR = 1.07,95%CI = 0.91-1.25,P = 0.42). Furthermore, we found no evidence for causal effects by conducting summary-level MR analysis for either CSS (IVW:HR = 1.04,95%CI = 0.85-1.28,P = 0.70) or OS (IVW:HR = 1.10,95%CI = 0.93-1.31,P = 0.25). CONCLUSION: This study supports the observed association between lower circulating 25-OHD and poorer survival outcomes for CRC patients. Whilst the genotype-specific association between better outcomes and higher 25-OHD is intriguing, we found no support for causality using MR approaches.
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 | 0.058 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".