ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis of hypertension, coronary artery disease, and gastric cancer with supplementary clinical data.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The relationship between gastric cancer and cardiovascular traits, including hypertension and coronary artery disease (CAD), remains incompletely understood. Observational studies are prone to confounding and reverse causation, and genetic evidence may help clarify the nature of these associations. Methods: We conducted a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics to investigate the relationships between gastric cancer, hypertension, and CAD. Multiple MR methods and sensitivity analyses were applied to assess robustness. To provide supplementary clinical context, we additionally conducted a small retrospective clinical analysis of 45 individuals, including gastric cancer cases and non-cancer controls, using logistic regression adjusted for age and sex. Results: MR analyses showed no evidence that genetic liability to gastric cancer was associated with the risk of hypertension or CAD. In contrast, genetic predisposition to hypertension was inversely associated with gastric cancer risk. These findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses. In the retrospective cohort, hypertension was not significantly associated with gastric cancer risk. Conclusions: This study provides genetic evidence supporting an inverse association between hypertension liability and gastric cancer risk. However, the supplementary retrospective clinical analysis was limited by its small sample size and did not provide independent validation of the MR findings. Larger observational studies are needed. Further studies are warranted to clarify the underlying biological mechanisms.
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.