Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deciphering the Impact of Common Genetic Variation on Lung Cancer Risk: A Genome-Wide Association Study

Open access
Broderick, Peter, Wang, Yufei, Vijayakrishnan, Jayaram, Matakidou, Athena, Spitz, Margaret R., Eisen, Timothy, Amos, Christopher I., Houlston, Richard S.·2009·Cancer Research

Abstract

To explore the impact of common variation on the risk of developing lung cancer, we conducted a two-phase genome-wide association (GWA) study. In phase 1, we compared the genotypes of 511,919 tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in 1,952 cases and 1,438 controls; in phase 2, 30,568 SNPs were genotyped in 2,465 cases and 3,005 controls. SNP selection was based on best supported P values from phase 1 and two other GWA studies of lung cancer. In the combined analysis of phases 1 and 2, the strongest associations identified were defined by SNPs mapping to 15q25.1 (rs12914385; P = 3.19 × 10−16), 5p15.33 (rs4975616; P = 6.66 × 10−7), and 6p21.33 (rs3117582; P = 9.13 × 10−7). Variation at 15q25.1, but not 5p15.33 or 6p21.33, was strongly associated with smoking behavior with risk alleles correlated to higher consumption. Variation at 5p15.33 was shown to significantly influence induction of lung cancer histology. Pooling data from the four series provided 21,620 genotypes for 7,560 cases and 8,205 controls. A meta-analysis provided increased support that variation at 15q25.1 (rs8034191; P = 3.24 × 10−26), 5p15.33 (rs4975616; P = 2.99 × 10−9), and 6p21.33 (rs3117582; P = 4.46 × 10−10) influences lung cancer risk. The next best-supported associations were attained at 15q15.2 (rs748404: P = 1.08 × 10−6) and 10q23.31 (rs1926203; P = 1.28 × 10−6). These data indicate few common variants account for 1% of the excess familial risk underscoring the necessity of having additional large sample series for gene discovery. [Cancer Res 2009;69(16):6633–41]

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-0680

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 234

Metadata

Authors
Broderick, P., Wang, Y., Vijayakrishnan, J., Matakidou, A., Spitz, M. R., Eisen, T., Amos, C. I., & Houlston, R. S.
Venue
Cancer Research
Published
2009-08-12
Volume
69
Issue
16
Pages
6633-6641
ISSN
  • 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7445
OpenAlex
W2075040668
Cited by
234
References
3
FWCI
13.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deciphering the Impact of Common Genetic Variation on Lung Cancer Risk: A Genome-Wide Association Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-0680
The paper
Broderick, P., Wang, Y., Vijayakrishnan, J., Matakidou, A., Spitz, M. R., Eisen, T., Amos, C. I., & Houlston, R. S. (2009). Deciphering the Impact of Common Genetic Variation on Lung Cancer Risk: A Genome-Wide Association Study. Cancer Research. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-0680

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.