Associations between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ten common cancers: novel insights from Mendelian randomization analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a significant global health issue, suspected to elevate the risk for various cancers. This study sought to discern whether COPD serves as a risk marker or a causative factor for prevalent cancers. METHODS: We employed univariable MR (UVMR) analyses to investigate the causal relationship between COPD and the top ten common cancers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the main findings. Multivariable MR (MVMR) and two-step MR analyses were also conducted. False-discovery-rate (FDR) was used to correct multiple testing bias. RESULTS: ). This relationship extends to lung cancer subtypes such as squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), adenocarcinoma (LUAD), and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). A tentative link was also identified between COPD and bladder cancer (OR = 1.53, 95%CI 1.03-2.28, FDR = 0.125). No significant associations were found between COPD and other types of cancer. The MVMR analysis that adjusted for smoking, alcohol drinking, and body mass index did not identify any significant causal relationships between COPD and either lung or bladder cancer. However, the two-step MR analysis indicates that COPD mediated 19.2% (95% CI 12.7-26.1%), 36.1% (24.9-33.2%), 35.9% (25.7-34.9%), and 35.5% (26.2-34.8%) of the association between smoking and overall lung cancer, as well as LUAD, LUSC, and SCLC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: COPD appears to act more as a risk marker than a direct cause of prevalent cancers. Importantly, it partially mediates the connection between smoking and lung cancer, underscoring its role in lung cancer prevention strategies.
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 | 0.043 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".