ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Genetic predisposition to type 2 diabetes mellitus and aortic dissection: a Mendelian randomisation study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Myokines and mitochondrial function in cardiometabolic diseases.Journal of physiology and biochemistry · 2026Review
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
Background: This Mendelian randomization (MR) study aimed to explore the causal relationship between the genetic predisposition to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and aortic dissection (AD), and to assess associations with genetically predicted glycemic traits. The study sought to verify the inverse relationship between T2DM and AD using a more robust and unbiased method, building on the observational studies previously established. Materials and methods: The study employed a two-sample and multivariable MR approach to analyze genetic data from the DIAbetes Meta-ANalysis of Trans-Ethnic association studies (DIAMANTE) with 74,124 cases and 824,006 controls, and the Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-Related Traits Consortium (MAGIC) involving up to 196,991 individuals. For AD data, FinnGen Release 10 was used, including 967 cases and 381,977 controls. The research focused on three foundational MR assumptions and controlled for confounders like hypertension. Genetic instruments were selected for their genome-wide significance, and multiple MR methods and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: The study revealed no significant effect of genetic predisposition to T2DM on the risk of AD. Even after adjusting for potential confounders, the results were consistent, indicating no causal relationship. Additionally, glycemic traits such as fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and HbA1c levels did not show a significant impact on AD susceptibility. The findings remained stable across various MR models and sensitivity analyses. In contrast, genetic liability to T2DM and glycemic traits showed a significant association with coronary artery disease (CAD), aligning with the established understanding. Conclusion: Contrary to previous observational studies, this study concludes that genetic predisposition to T2DM does not confer protection against AD. These findings underscore the imperative for further research, particularly in exploring the preventative potential of T2DM treatments against AD and to facilitate the development of novel therapeutic interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.