ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2020
Association between cancer antigen 19-9 and diabetes risk: A prospective and Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-specific association between carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and incident type 2 diabetes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Association of Circulating Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 Level with Type 2 Diabetic Kidney Disease in Chinese Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2024Article
- Construction and validation of a prognostic risk model for breast cancer based on protein expression.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- Association between cancer antigen 19-9 and diabetes risk: A prospective and Mendelian randomization study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionElevated serum cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels have been found in diabetes patients in most observational studies; however, whether there is a causal association between CA19-9 and diabetes mellitus is unclear. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur study was carried out based on the Dongfeng-Tongji cohort comprising 27,009 individuals. We first investigated the associations between serum CA19-9 levels and incident diabetes mellitus risk in a prospective cohort study (12,700 individuals). Then, we explored the potential causal relationship between CA19-9 and diabetes mellitus risk in a cross-sectional study (3,349 diabetes mellitus patients and 8,341 controls) using Mendelian randomization analysis. A weighted genetic risk score was calculated by adding the CA19-9 increasing alleles in five single-nucleotide polymorphisms (rs17271883, rs3760776 and rs3760775 in FUT6, rs11880333 in CA11, rs265548 in B3GNT3, and rs1047781 in FUT2), which were identified in a previous genome-wide association study on serum CA19-9 levels.
resultsIn the prospective study, a total of 1,004 incident diabetes mellitus patients were diagnosed during a mean 4.54-year follow-up period. Elevated serum CA19-9 level was associated with a higher incident diabetes risk after adjustment for confounders, with a hazard ratio of 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.11-1.30) per standard deviation (12.17 U/mL) CA19-9 increase. Using the genetic score to estimate the unconfounded effect, we did not find a causal association of CA19-9 with diabetes risk (odds ratio per weighted CA19-9-increasing allele: 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.04; P = 0.61).
conclusionsThe present study did not support a causal association of serum CA19-9 with diabetes risk. CA19-9 might be a potential biomarker of incident diabetes mellitus risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.