ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Mendelian randomization analysis reveals no causal association between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for lipid metabolomics and shared pathophysiological mechanisms.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrative Single-Cell Transcriptomic, Mendelian Randomization and In Silico Perturbation Analyses Prioritize MUC20 as a Candidate Gene Associated with Osteoporosis and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in the Liver-Bone Axis.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
backgroundNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has been increasingly associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in observational studies, yet the causal nature of this relationship and its impact on systemic lipid metabolism remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the bidirectional causal relationships between NAFLD and HCC, and their effects on lipid metabolomics profiles using Mendelian randomization.
methodsWe conducted comprehensive Mendelian randomization analyses using genetic variants as instrumental variables. For NAFLD exposure analysis, 6 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected, while 55 SNPs were used for HCC exposure in reverse analysis. Four statistical methods were employed: inverse variance weighted (IVW), MR Egger regression, weighted mode, and simple mode. The study evaluated causal effects on over 30 metabolic biomarkers, including triacylglycerols, phosphatidylcholines, phosphatidylinositols, ceramides, and sphingolipids. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess horizontal pleiotropy and result robustness.
resultsNo statistically significant causal association was found between NAFLD and HCC risk across all four methods (MR Egger: OR 0.996, 95% CI 0.993-0.999, P = 0.088; IVW: OR 1.000, 95% CI 0.999-1.001, P = 0.969; weighted mode: OR 0.999, 95% CI 0.998-1.001, P = 0.447; simple mode: OR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999-1.002, P = 0.402). Reverse Mendelian randomization showed no significant causal effect of HCC on NAFLD development. Both NAFLD and HCC demonstrated limited direct causal effects on lipid metabolomics profiles, with confidence intervals for most metabolites clustering tightly around the null value (0.990-1.010). Only a few phospholipid compounds showed marginal significance in NAFLD analysis. Sensitivity analyses confirmed result robustness without evidence of horizontal pleiotropy.
conclusionsThis comprehensive Mendelian randomization study challenges the assumption of direct causal relationships between NAFLD, HCC, and systemic lipid metabolism.
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.