ArticlePloS one2024
Causal associations between liver enzymes and diabetic microvascular complications: A univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dementia risk across distinct metabolic profiles in the UK Biobank.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Multi-Omics Evidence Linking Depression to MASLD Risk via Inflammatory Immune Signaling.Biomedicines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational studies show that liver enzymes are diabetes risk factors. However, previous observational investigations on the relationship between liver enzymes and diabetic microvascular complications produced contradictory results. The purpose of this research is to examine the independent causal effects of liver enzymes on diabetic microvascular complications.
methodsUnivariable Mendelian randomization (UVMR) and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MVMR) were utilized to disentangle the causal effects. The genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary-level statistics were collected from the UK biobank and the FinnGen consortium. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected as genetic instruments with genome-wide significance (p < 5 ×10-8). Five UVMR approaches, including inverse variance weighted (IVW), Bayesian weighted Mendelian randomization, MR-Pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO), weighted median, and MR-Egger, and three MVMR approaches, including the extended versions of IVW, MR-Egger, and the Q-minimization methods, were performed to evaluate the causal effects. The robustness of the MR results was further confirmed using several sensitivity analyses.
resultsUVMR revealed that a genetically predisposed per standard deviation increase in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level increased the risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (IVW OR = 1.489, 95% CI = 1.206-1.772, p = 0.006). Likewise, serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels showed similar results (IVW OR = 1.376, 95% CI = 1.115-1.638, p = 0.017). Furthermore, these effects were consistent after controlling for glycemia and blood pressure using MVMR analysis. Additionally, sensitivity analyses further strengthened the causality. However, no significant associations were found between alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and diabetic microvascular complications.
conclusionsRobust evidence was demonstrated for an independent causal effect of serum ALT or AST concentration on the risk of DR in T2DM. Further investigations are necessary to elucidate the potential biological mechanisms and confirm their clinical significance for early prevention and intervention.
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.