ArticlePloS one2024
The causal effects of age at menarche and age at menopause on sepsis: A two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mendelian randomization analysis of modifiable risk factors for breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether the age at menarche (AAM) and the age at menopause (ANM) are causally related to the development of sepsis.
methodsWe performed a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis by utilizing summary statistics from genome-wide association study (GWAS) datasets for both the exposure and outcome variables. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that exhibited significant associations with AAM and ANM were chosen as instrumental variables to estimate the causal effects on sepsis. Our study employed a variety of methods, including MR-Egger regression, weighted median estimation, inverse variance weighting, a simple model, and a weighted model. Odds ratios (ORs) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the primary indicators for assessing causality. Furthermore, we conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the presence of genetic heterogeneity and validate the robustness of the tools employed.
resultOur analysis revealed a significant negative causal relationship between AAM and the risk of sepsis (IVW: OR = 0.870, 95% CI = 0.793-0.955, P = 0.003). However, our Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis did not yield sufficient evidence to support a causal link between ANM and sepsis (IVW: OR = 0.987, 95% CI = 0.971-1.004, P = 0.129).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that an earlier AAM may be associated with an increased risk of sepsis. However, we did not find sufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between ANM and sepsis.
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.