ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Diabetes and osteoporosis: a two-sample mendelian randomization study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrative bioinformatics and machine learning reveal hub genes and immune signatures bridging type 2 diabetes mellitus, fracture susceptibility, and osteoblast differentiation dysfunction.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026Article
- Impact of Time Since Diagnosis and Age on Fracture Risk in Young Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Unveiling Epigenetic Molecular Mechanisms in Bone Fracture Risk: Insights From 731 Immune Cells, 1400 Metabolites, and Critical Genetic Pathways.Mediators of inflammation · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effects on bone mineral density (BMD)/fracture between type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes are unknown. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the causal relationship between the two types of diabetes and BMD/fracture using a Mendelian randomization (MR) design.
methodsA two-sample MR study was conducted to examine the causal relationship between diabetes and BMD/fracture, with three phenotypes (T1D, T2D, and glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c]) of diabetes as exposures and five phenotypes (femoral neck BMD [FN-BMD], lumbar spine BMD [LS-BMD], heel-BMD, total body BMD [TB-BMD], and fracture) as outcomes, combining MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and inverse variance weighted (IVW) sensitivity assessments. Additionally, horizontal pleiotropy was evaluated and corrected using the residual sum and outlier approaches.
resultsThe IVW method showed that genetically predicted T1D was negatively associated with TB-BMD (β = -0.018, 95% CI: -0.030, -0.006), while T2D was positively associated with FN-BMD (β = 0.033, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.062), heel-BMD (β = 0.018, 95% CI: 0.006, 0.031), and TB-BMD (β = 0.050, 95% CI: 0.022, 0.079). Further, HbA1c was not associated with the five outcomes (β ranged from - 0.012 to 0.075).
conclusionsOur results showed that T1D and T2D have different effects on BMD at the genetic level. BMD decreased in patients with T1D and increased in those with T2D. These findings highlight the complex interplay between diabetes and bone health, suggesting potential age-specific effects and genetic influences. To better understand the mechanisms of bone metabolism in patients with diabetes, further longitudinal studies are required to explain BMD changes in different types of diabetes.
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.