Polygenic inheritance and its interplay with smoking history in predicting lung cancer diagnosis: a French-Canadian case-control cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most near-term clinical application of genome-wide association studies in lung cancer is a polygenic risk score (PRS). METHODS: A case-control dataset was generated consisting of 4002 lung cancer cases from the LORD project and 20,010 ethnically matched controls from CARTaGENE. A genome-wide PRS including >1.1 million genetic variants was derived and validated in UK Biobank (n = 5419 lung cancer cases). The predictive ability and diagnostic discrimination performance of the PRS was tested in LORD/CARTaGENE and benchmarked against previous PRSs from the literature. Stratified analyses were performed by smoking status and genetic risk groups defined as low (<20th percentile), intermediate (20-80th percentile) and high (>80th percentile) PRS. FINDINGS: The phenotypic variance explained and the effect size of the genome-wide PRS numerically outperformed previous PRSs. Individuals with high genetic risk had a 2-fold odds of lung cancer compared to low genetic risk. The PRS was an independent predictor of lung cancer beyond conventional clinical risk factors, but its diagnostic discrimination performance was incremental in an integrated risk model. Smoking increased the odds of lung cancer by 7.7-fold in low genetic risk and by 11.3-fold in high genetic risk. Smoking with high genetic risk was associated with a 17-fold increase in the odds of lung cancer compared to individuals who never smoked and with low genetic risk. INTERPRETATION: Individuals at low genetic risk are not protected against the smoking-related risk of lung cancer. The joint multiplicative effect of PRS and smoking increases the odds of lung cancer by nearly 20-fold. FUNDING: This work was supported by the CQDM and the IUCPQ Foundation owing to a generous donation from Mr. Normand Lord.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".