ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Is ER-positive breast cancer a shield against myocardial infarction and its complications? A Mendelian randomization approach.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundEstrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (ER + BC) is the most prevalent subtype of breast cancer. However, the causal relationship between ER + BC and myocardial infarction complications remains unclear. While observational studies suggest a potential association between ER + BC and cardiovascular events, existing evidence does not provide sufficient causal inference. Mendelian randomization (MR) serves as a powerful method for investigating the causal links between genetic variables and disease outcomes.
objectiveThe central goal of this study is to assess the genetic basis for the associations between ER + BC and complications of myocardial infarction (MI Complications), as well as between ER + BC and acute myocardial infarction (Acute MI), employing MR as the analytical framework.
methodsA two-sample MR analysis was conducted, with ER + BC as the exposure variable and Acute MI and MI Complications as outcomes.The exposure and outcome data in this study were both downloaded from publicly available databases on MR-Base, a resource provided by the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit.Causal inference was performed using inverse variance weighting (IVW), MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode methods. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane's Q test, and pleiotropy was evaluated using the MR-Egger intercept test and MR-PRESSO, to provide additional assurance regarding the robustness of the findings.
resultsIVW analysis revealed a significant protective effect of ER + BC on MI Complications (P = 0.018), with a P-value of 0.007 for the effect on Acute MI. However, MR-Egger suggests that the relationship between ER + BC and Acute MI exhibits pleiotropy.Additionally, the MR analysis found no evidence of pleiotropy (P > 0.05) or heterogeneity (P > 0.05) between ER + BC and MI Complication, suggesting that the causal relationship is not confounded by other potential factors. Furthermore, the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the findings.
conclusionThis study provides genetic evidence supporting a protective relationship of causality between ER + BC and Acute MI, as well as MI Complications. The MR analysis suggests that ER + BC may reduce the risk of MI Complications. These findings offer new perspectives for clinical interventions and public health policies.
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.