ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis of the causal association between circulating inflammatory proteins and osteosarcoma.
Article in Discover oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the causal relationship between 91 circulating inflammatory proteins and osteosarcoma using the two-sample Mendelian randomization method.
methodCorresponding exposure and outcome data were extracted from genome-wide association study (GWAS) databases. A two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis was conducted on the data, with the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method serving as the primary analytical approach. This was complemented by MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode methods to validate the results. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to verify the reliability of the data.
resultsThe IVW analysis revealed a positive causal relationship between GCST90274776 (OR = 3.02, 95% CI: 0.033-0.117, P = 0.028), GCST90274822 (OR = 1.603, 95% CI: 1.014-2.535, P = 0.043), and GCST90274847 (OR = 2.580, 95% CI: 1.155-5.762, P = 0.021) and osteosarcoma. In contrast, GCST90274844 (OR = 0.313, 95% CI: 0.155-0.634, P = 0.001) showed a negative causal relationship with osteosarcoma. The supplementary analysis methods (MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode) consistently validated the direction and magnitude of these findings. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the data were reliable and free from bias.
conclusionUsing the Mendelian randomization approach, this study suggest that GCST90274776, GCST90274822, and GCST90274847 may be risk factors for osteosarcoma, whereas GCST90274844 appears to exhibit a protective effect against the disease.
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.