ArticleInfectious agents and cancer2025
Mendelian randomization in cancer research: opportunities and challenges.
Article in Infectious agents and cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of lipid-lowering drugs in urologic and male reproductive cancers: a Mendelian randomization study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Causal Relationships Between Plasma Metabolites, Inflammatory Factors, and Oral Cancer Risk: A Comprehensive Mendelian Randomization Study With Mediation Analysis.Human mutation · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mendelian Randomization (MR) is increasingly used in cancer research to infer causal relationships by leveraging genetic variants as instrumental variables. While the growth of genome-wide association studies and biobank data has expanded the utility of MR, this surge-particularly pronounced in China-raises concerns about methodological rigor. The widespread adoption may be partly driven by the Chinese translation of key MR literature. Recent advances such as multivariable MR, mediation analysis, and integration with AI and omics data have enhanced the robustness and biological interpretability of MR studies. However, challenges persist, including horizontal pleiotropy, weak instrument bias, and misinterpretation of biomarkers as causal exposures. To improve MR study credibility, frameworks like STROBE-MR and MR-GRADE are being adopted. This article reviews methodological improvements and persistent pitfalls in MR, especially within cancer epidemiology, and highlights strategies for ensuring validity in this rapidly evolving field.
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.