Genetic Evidence for a Causal Relationship Between Innate Leukocytes and the Risk of Digestive System Cancers in East Asians and Europeans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Peripheral traditional immune cell disorder plays an important role in cancer onset and development. The causal relationships between leukocytes prior to cancer and the risk of digestive system cancer remain unknown. This study assesses the causal correlations between leukocytes and digestive system cancer risk in East Asians and Europeans. Methods: Summary-level data on leukocyte-related genetic variation were extracted from Biobank Japan (107,964 participants) and a recent large-scale meta-analysis (563,946 participants). Summary-level data for the cancers were obtained from Biobank Japan (212,978 individuals) and the FinnGen consortium (178,802 participants). Univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses were performed on East Asians and Europeans separately. Results: Univariable MR analysis demonstrated the significant association between circulating eosinophil counts and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in East Asians (odds ratio (OR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69 - 0.92, P = 0.002) and a suggestive relationship in the European population (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77 - 0.97, P = 0.013). An inverse suggestive association was observed between levels of basophils and the risk of gastric cancer (GC) in East Asians (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72 - 0.97, P = 0.019). The multivariable MR analysis showed the independent causal effect of eosinophil count on CRC risk in East Asians (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.57 - 0.92, P = 0.009) and Europeans (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70 - 0.92, P = 0.002). Circulating basophils served as the negative causal factor in GC risk in East Asians (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.94, P = 0.007). Conclusions: Our MR analyses revealed a genetic causal relationship between reduced blood eosinophils and an increased CRC risk in both Europeans and East Asians. Furthermore, our results suggested a causal association between decreased basophils and an elevated GC risk specifically in East Asians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".