ArticleScientific reports2025
Causal analysis of dietary preferences and the risk of endometriosis using large-scale population data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Dietary factors have recently been recognized as potentially influential in the pathogenesis of endometriosis (EM), yet studies on the causal relationship between dietary preferences and EM are limited. The present study aimed to explore the causal relationships between 187 dietary preferences and EM using Mendelian randomization (MR) methods. This study utilised genome-wide association study data from over 500,000 European participants for dietary preferences and 64,658 EM patients from Finland. Dietary preferences with potential causal relationships to EM were identified using two-sample MR methods. P-values from the inverse variance weighted (IVW) analysis were corrected using the false discovery rate (FDR) method to ensure accuracy. Additionally, heterogeneity analysis, pleiotropy assessment, leave-one-out analysis, and reverse MR analysis were conducted to further validate and solidify the findings of the study. After FDR correction, IVW analysis revealed that asparagus preference was significantly protective against EM, including in American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) stages 1-2 and 3-4. Conversely, preferences for different types of coffee and orange juice were associated with an increased likelihood of EM across these stages. Subgroup analysis indicated that asparagus preference had a protective effect against deep EM, ovarian EM, pelvic peritoneal EM, and rectovaginal septum and vaginal EM. In contrast, coffee preference increased the risk of pelvic peritoneal EM, fallopian tube EM, and unspecified EM, whereas orange juice preference increased the risk of deep EM, rectovaginal septum and vaginal EM, pelvic peritoneal EM, and unspecified EM. Reverse MR analysis did not identify causal relationships between EM and the specific dietary preferences that were analysed in this study. These findings suggest that asparagus preference significantly reduces the risk of developing EM, whereas preferences for orange juice and different types of coffee may increase the risk, offering new insights into EM management through dietary modifications.
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.