User talk:Lennon

Hi, in regard to your reversal of my edit https://www.snpedia.com/index.php?title=Rs2032582(T;T)&curid=16357&diff=1542084&oldid=1542083. You stated that increase in cancer is applicable no non-smokers. It is not so. The population in the paper is more than 80% smokers. To obtain the odds they compare heavy smokers with light smokers. The odds are the same. So when they say "independent of smoking" that means independent of degree of smoking. This is not applicable to non-smokers at all. Paul z (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll review it (i.e. re-read the citation) w/in 48 hours. One question: do you know if this has been replicated, even partially, since the original publication? Greg (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. There are 96 lung cancer patients, 95 of whom smoke, and 86 controls, of whom 69 smoke. So the conclusion is, as you say, independent of degree of smoking. The bigger question for me today is whether this publication should be cited in SNPedia for anything at this point, since by today's standards, it's underpowered (too few cases & controls; no Bonferroni or equivalent multiple-comparison correction used). And, as far as I can see, since the 2006 publication this finding has not been replicated. Do you see any reason to consider it credible enough to report to people in 2018? Greg (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not credible. In addition, [PMID 17259654] found no effect (P=0.97) of Rs2032582 on lung cancer in 300 European smokers younger than 50. And meta-analysis [PMID 23687985] found only about 20% increase in the risk of cancer overall for Rs2032582, which appears to be limited to Asians. Paul z (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)