Adiposity distribution and risks of 12 obesity-related cancers: a Mendelian randomization analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is convincing evidence that overall adiposity increases the risks of several cancers. Whether the distribution of adiposity plays a similar role is unclear. METHODS: We used 2-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) to examine causal relationships of 5 adiposity distribution traits (abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (ASAT); visceral adipose tissue (VAT); gluteofemoral adipose tissue (GFAT); liver fat; and pancreas fat) with the risks of 12 obesity-related cancers (endometrial, ovarian, breast, colorectal, pancreas, multiple myeloma, liver, kidney (renal cell), thyroid, gallbladder, esophageal adenocarcinoma, and meningioma). RESULTS: Sample size across all genome-wide association studies (GWAS) ranged from 8407 to 728 896 (median: 57 249). We found evidence that higher genetically predicted ASAT increased the risks of endometrial cancer, liver cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) per standard deviation (SD) higher ASAT = 1.79 (1.18 to 2.71), 3.83 (1.39 to 10.53), and 2.34 (1.15 to 4.78), respectively). Conversely, we found evidence that higher genetically predicted GFAT decreased the risks of breast cancer and meningioma (ORs and 95% CIs per SD higher genetically predicted GFAT = 0.77 (0.62 to 0.97) and 0.53 (0.32 to 0.90), respectively). We also found evidence for an effect of higher genetically predicted VAT and liver fat on increased liver cancer risk (ORs and 95% CIs per SD higher genetically predicted adiposity trait = 4.29 (1.41 to 13.07) and 4.09 (2.29 to 7.28), respectively). DISCUSSION: Our analyses provide novel insights into the relationship between adiposity distribution and cancer risk. These insights highlight the potential importance of adipose tissue distribution alongside maintaining a healthy weight for cancer prevention.
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 | 0.030 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".