ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021
Instrumental Heterogeneity in Sex-Specific Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization: Empirical Results From the Relationship Between Anthropometric Traits and Breast/Prostate Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of lipid-lowering drugs in urologic and male reproductive cancers: a Mendelian randomization study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Nuclear magnetic resonance-determined lipoprotein profile and risk of breast cancer: a Mendelian randomization study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Genetic associations of leisure sedentary behaviors and the risk of 15 site-specific cancers: A Mendelian randomization study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Reassessing the causal role of obesity in breast cancer susceptibility: a comprehensive multivariable Mendelian randomization investigating the distribution and timing of exposure.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Mendelian Randomization Study of Causal Relationship between Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Risk of Lung Cancer.BioMed research international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, sex instrumental heterogeneity is an important problem needed to address carefully, which however is often overlooked and may lead to misleading causal inference.
methodsWe first employed cross-trait linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSC), Pearson's correlation analysis, and the Cochran's
resultsThe simulation definitively demonstrated that sex-combined IVs can lead to biased causal effect estimates in sex-specific two-sample MR studies. In our real applications, both LDSC and Pearson's correlation analyses showed high genetic correlation between sex-combined and sex-specific IVs of the four anthropometric traits, while nearly all the correlation coefficients were larger than zero but less than one. The Cochran's
conclusionOur study reveals that the sex instrumental heterogeneity has non-ignorable impact on sex-specific two-sample MR studies and the causal effects of anthropometric traits on breast/prostate cancer would be biased if sex-combined IVs are incorrectly employed.
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.