A genome-wide SNP-SNP interaction analysis exploring novel interacting loci associated with the risk of recurrence in colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic factors can influence and predict patient outcomes. The association of interactions of germline SNPs with patient outcomes is an understudied area of prognostic research. In this study, we applied the first genome-wide SNP-SNP interaction analysis in relation to colorectal cancer outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to explore interacting SNP loci at the genome-wide level that predict the risk of local or distant recurrence (RMFS) in a cohort of stage I-III colorectal cancer patients from the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. METHODS: The patient cohort consisted of 430 unrelated Caucasian patients. Genetic and medical data was collected previously and the genetic data consisted of a total of 384,415 genotyped SNPs. The PLINK epistasis function was utilized to examine pairwise SNP interactions. Select interactions were assessed by multivariable Cox-regression models, adjusting for established clinical covariates. Genomic regions identified were explored for additional interactions. Published databases were utilized to retrieve biological information about the loci identified. RESULTS: After Bonferroni correction for multiple testing, no interaction remained significant. We present the top 20 interactions. The interaction p-values ranged from p = 1.37E-8 to p = 2.14E-9 in this set. Interactions were also tested by multivariable Cox regression models including established clinical covariates. Many of the SNPs were intronic and some of them were functional (e.g., expression quantitative expression loci). Analysis of the other SNPs in the same genomic regions as the interacting SNPs led to the identification of three additional interaction models. CONCLUSIONS: We present the results of the first genome-wide SNP-SNP interaction analysis in colorectal cancer outcomes. While no SNP-SNP interaction remained significant after correction for multiple testing, our methodology emphasizes the additional knowledge that can be obtained using interaction analyses while studying prognostic markers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".