Germline copy number variants and endometrial cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Known risk loci for endometrial cancer explain approximately one third of familial endometrial cancer. However, the association of germline copy number variants (CNVs) with endometrial cancer risk remains relatively unknown. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of rare CNVs overlapping gene regions in 4115 endometrial cancer cases and 17,818 controls to identify functionally relevant variants associated with disease. We identified a 1.22-fold greater number of CNVs in DNA samples from cases compared to DNA samples from controls (p = 4.4 × 10–63). Under three models of putative CNV impact (deletion, duplication, and loss of function), genome-wide association studies identified 141 candidate gene loci associated (p < 0.01) with endometrial cancer risk. Pathway analysis of the candidate loci revealed an enrichment of genes involved in the 16p11.2 proximal deletion syndrome, driven by a large recurrent deletion (chr16:29,595,483-30,159,693) identified in 0.15% of endometrial cancer cases and 0.02% of control participants. Together, these data provide evidence that rare copy number variants have a role in endometrial cancer susceptibility and that the proximal 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 region contains 25 candidate risk gene(s) that warrant further analysis to better understand their role in human disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".