ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Genetically Proxied Biological Aging and Risk of Hypertrophic Scar/Keloid-Coded Phenotypes: An Exploratory Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Hypertrophic scars (HS), common fibroproliferative disorders, predominantly affect younger individuals. To investigate potential causal associations between multiple genetically proxied biological aging indicators and the risk of HS using a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. Patients and Methods: We used genome-wide association studies (GWAS) data to examine causal links between biological aging indicators (epigenetic clocks, telomere length, macroscopic aging) and HS. Primary analysis employed inverse-variance weighted MR, with sensitivity analyses (MR-Egger, weighted median, weighted mode) and multivariable MR adjusting for fibrogenic mediators. Results were validated in independent cohorts. Robustness was assessed via MR-PRESSO, Cochran's Q, MR-Steiger, and leave-one-out analyses to detect statistical evidence of directional and horizontal pleiotropy. Results: Genetically predicted higher IEAA (Odds Ratio [OR]=0.926, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.878-0.976, P=0.004) and higher PhenoAge (OR=0.911, 95% CI: 0.848-0.979, P=0.011) were nominally associated with a decreased risk of HS. The PhenoAge association was consistently replicated in the independent validation cohort (OR=0.91, P=0.0059). However, these associations did not remain significant after False Discovery Rate correction. Negative control analysis showed no association with general skin fibrosis, suggesting specificity for hyper-proliferative scarring. Multivariable MR indicated that the protective effect of PhenoAge was independent of classical fibrogenic pathways. No significant causal associations were found for other aging indicators. No statistical evidence of directional or horizontal pleiotropy was detected in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: This MR study provides exploratory evidence suggesting that genetically proxied faster epigenetic aging may be nominally associated with a reduced risk of HS. These findings offer novel hypotheses regarding the complex interplay between aging processes and scar formation.
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.