ArticleKorean journal of family medicine2026
Assessing the impact of metabolomic markers on gastric cancer risk: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Korean journal of family medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to examine the relationship between genetically predicted metabolite levels and gastric cancer (GC) risk using Mendelian randomization (MR), and to identify the metabolic pathways potentially involved. Methods: We selected genetic instruments for metabolites from 64 genome-wide association studies covering 362,750 participants. A two-sample MR design was applied to evaluate the associations with GC using summary-level data from a combined analysis of the UK Biobank and FinnGen. The primary analysis relied on the inverse-variance weighted method, while the median-weighted and MR-Egger methods were used to account for potential violations of instrumental variable assumptions and provide the estimate even when a subset of instruments was invalid. The MR-Egger intercept test was performed to detect directional pleiotropy. Metabolites showing significant associations with GC were further examined using pathway enrichment analysis to identify relevant metabolic and lipid processes. Results: MR analyses identified 25 and 17 metabolites that were positively and inversely associated with GC risk, respectively. Notably, hexanoylcarnitine and cis-4-decenoylcarnitine were strongly associated with increased risk, whereas pregnanediol disulfate, acetylcarnitine, prolyl-hydroxyproline, and X-18914 were associated with reduced risk, with no evidence of heterogeneity or directional pleiotropy. Enrichment analyses highlighted key metabolic pathways, including cysteine and methionine catabolism, beta-oxidation of pristanoyl-CoA (coenzyme A), oxidation of branched-chain fatty acids, and peroxisomal lipid metabolism. Conclusion: This study identified a set of genetically predicted metabolites associated with GC risk, highlighting the potential utility of metabolite panels and lipid-based biomarkers for risk stratification and early detection. However, further standardization and extensive validation are necessary prior to clinical application.
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.