ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Association between serum iron status and primary liver cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. 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.
- Assessing causal relationships between iron level, disorders of iron metabolism, and hepatocellular carcinoma: a Mendelian randomisation study : The first author.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- A causal inference study exploring the impact of iron status on the risk of thyroid cancer based on two-sample mendelian randomization.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Serum Iron Status and Retinal Degenerative Diseases: A Mendelian Randomization Study on AMD, RP, and DR.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Using Mendelian Randomization to Study the Role of Iron in Health and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSerum iron status has been reported as associated with primary liver cancer (PLC) risk. However, whether iron status plays a role in the development of PLC remains inconclusive.
methodsGenetic summary statistics of the four biomarkers (serum iron, ferritin, transferrin saturation, and transferrin) of iron status and PLC were retrieved from two independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that had been performed in European populations. Two-sample univariate and multivariate Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses were conducted to determine the causal link between iron status and PLC risk.
resultsNo significant horizontal pleiotropy was detected for the four biomarkers according to the Mendelian Randomization Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO) global test. No evidence of between-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) heterogeneity and directional pleiotropy was detected by the Cochran's Q test and MR-Egger regression for serum iron, ferritin, and transferrin. For transferrin saturation, although no heterogeneity was detected, the directional pleiotropy was significant (P value for intercept of MR-Egger regression =0.033). Univariate MR estimates based on inverse variance weighting (IVW) method suggested that there was no causal link between serum iron [odds ratio (OR) =0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45 to 1.11], ferritin (OR =0.56, 95% CI: 0.16 to 2.04), and transferrin (OR =0.91, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.15) and PLC risk. We found a significant causal relationship between transferrin saturation and PLC risk (OR =0.45, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.90), although this link was non-significant in multivariate MR analysis.
conclusionsThere might be no causal relationship between iron status and PLC risk. However, data from larger sample size and people with different ethnic background were needed to further validate our findings.
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.