ArticleMedicine2025
Causal link between coronary heart disease and lipidomics: A Mendelian randomization analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aims to employ the 2-Sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) and Multivariable MR (MVMR) approaches to investigate the associations between specific lipid profiles and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). This study analyzed a comprehensive genome-wide association studies dataset comprising 179 lipidomic traits to assess the associations between various molecular subclasses of lipid traits and the risk of CHD. Causal relationships were investigated using the two-sample Mendelian randomization method, with supplementary analyses, including sensitivity analyses and MVMR, further refining the results. Heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy were evaluated using Cochran Q, the MR-Egger intercept test, and MR-PRESSO. Additionally, a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the influence of individual single nucleotide polymorphisms on the robustness of MR estimates. By examining 179 lipidomic traits as exposures and CHD as the outcome, this study identified significant causal relationships between glycerophospholipids, sphingolipids, and glycerolipids, which were associated with an increased risk of CHD. Specifically, levels of 5 triacylglycerols (TAGs) - (50:4), (52:3), (52:4), (52:5), and (56:5) - along with 2 phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), namely (16:0_20:4) and (18:0_20:4), and 1 phosphatidylcholine (PC), namely (O-16:2_18:0), across 3 lipid categories were associated with an increased risk of CHD. The results of this study suggest that increased levels of TAGs, PEs, and PCs are associated with an elevated risk of CHD, implying that these lipid molecules may play a critical role in the pathogenesis of CHD. Furthermore, this study further elucidates the complex lipid metabolic pathways in CHD, highlighting structural alterations in distinct lipidomes that may differentially influence molecular subtypes.
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.