ArticleScientific reports2025
White blood cell traits and lung cancer risk: a two-sample mendelian randomization analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eosinophils in solid cancers: sentinels, predictors, and therapeutic allies.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2026Review
- Diagnostic value of peripheral blood leukocyte parameters, NE-WX, LY-Y, MO-WY, MO-Y, MO-Z, and NE-SFL, in lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Unraveling the role of blood cell perturbation responses in lung cancer by Mendelian randomization.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Variation in CBC-Derived Inflammatory Biomarkers Across Histologic Subtypes of Lung Cancer: Can Histology Guide Clinical Management?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Inflammatory score as a predictor of survival and nutritional deterioration in cancer patients: insights from a multicenter cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the potential association between white blood cell counts and the risk of lung cancer, including its subtypes, through Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. We conducted a two-sample MR analysis using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics for the both exposure traits (eosinophil count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, monocyte count, basophil count, and total white blood cell count) and outcome traits (lung cancer and its subtypes). The GWAS dataset for lung cancer included 29,266 cases (11273 lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), 7426 lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC), 2664 small cell lung cancer (SCLC)) and 56,450 controls. In MR analysis, we employed methods such as Inverse variance weighted (IVW), weighted median, MR-Egger regression, MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier. MR analysis revealed an elevated total white blood cell (WBC) count significantly increased the risk of LUAD (IVW: OR = 1.484, 95% CI = 1.219-1.749, p = 0.003). The results confirmed a causal relationship between monocyte count and LUAD (IVW: OR = 1.687, 95% CI:1.542-1.830, p < 0.001). An increased total WBC count was associated with a higher risk of LUAD. Additionally, analysis of WBC subtypes counts indicated that monocyte count plays an crucial role in the elevated risk of LUAD.
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.