Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40231651›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2025

Collider Bias Is an Insufficient Explanation for the Inverse Obesity Paradox in Prostate Cancer.

Tanja Stocks, Christel Häggström, Josef Fritz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tanja StocksDepartment of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0904-0557
Christel HäggströmNorthern Registry Centre, Department of Diagnostics and Intervention, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6808-4405
Josef FritzDepartment of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1342-3435

Funding

Cancerfonden 20 1033 PjFCancerfonden CAN 2017/1019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollider bias is often considered a potential explanation when the association between obesity and disease diagnosis differs from that with disease outcome, as seen in the "obesity paradox." For prostate cancer (PCa), in particular localized PCa, an "inverse" obesity paradox has been observed, where body mass index (BMI) is negatively associated with diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] ~0.9 per 5-kg/m

methodsWe simulated binary disease diagnosis and outcome data, including the typically unmeasured/unknown background variable (U) that could introduce collider bias. We calculated U-unadjusted (biased) and U-adjusted (true) marginal odds ratios (OR) from a case-only analysis, and determined the bias percentage using

resultsAcross a broad range of plausible parameter values for the PCa context, collider bias did not distort the OR of BMI on PCa death by more than 4%, equivalent to a ± 0.04 distortion in the OR estimate for continuous BMI. In comparison, classical confounding showed a higher potential for distorting BMI and PCa death associations than collider bias.

conclusionsCollider bias alone is unlikely to explain the inverse obesity paradox in (localized) PCa, reinforcing some mechanistic evidence that the observed positive relationship between BMI and PCa death is real, and not a statistical artifact. This finding emphasizes the importance of exploring alternative mechanisms beyond collider bias to better understand the underlying factors driving this paradox.

Indexed as

ObesityProstatic NeoplasmsBiasBody Mass IndexComputer SimulationHumansMaleObesity ParadoxOdds RatioRisk Factorsbody mass indexcase‐only analysiscollider biasobesity paradoxprostate cancersimulation

Identifiers

PMID40231651
PMCPMC11997866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.