Genetic risk impacts the association of menopausal hormone therapy with colorectal cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), a common treatment to relieve symptoms of menopause, is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). To inform CRC risk prediction and MHT risk-benefit assessment, we aimed to evaluate the joint association of a polygenic risk score (PRS) for CRC and MHT on CRC risk. Methods We used data from 28,486 postmenopausal women (11,519 cases and 16,967 controls) of European descent. A PRS based on 141 CRC-associated genetic variants was modeled as a categorical variable in quartiles. Multiplicative interaction between PRS and MHT use was evaluated using logistic regression. Additive interaction was measured using the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). 30-year cumulative risks of CRC for 50-year-old women according to MHT use and PRS were calculated. Results The reduction in odds ratios by MHT use was larger in women within the highest quartile of PRS compared to that in women within the lowest quartile of PRS (p-value = 2.7 × 10−8). At the highest quartile of PRS, the 30-year CRC risk was statistically significantly lower for women taking any MHT than for women not taking any MHT, 3.7% (3.3%–4.0%) vs 6.1% (5.7%–6.5%) (difference 2.4%,P-value = 1.83 × 10−14); these differences were also statistically significant but smaller in magnitude in the lowest PRS quartile, 1.6% (1.4%–1.8%) vs 2.2% (1.9%–2.4%) (difference 0.6%,P-value = 1.01 × 10−3), indicating 4 times greater reduction in absolute risk associated with any MHT use in the highest compared to the lowest quartile of genetic CRC risk. Conclusions MHT use has a greater impact on the reduction of CRC risk for women at higher genetic risk. These findings have implications for the development of risk prediction models for CRC and potentially for the consideration of genetic information in the risk-benefit assessment of MHT use.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".