ArticleCurrent medicinal chemistry2025
Mendelian Randomization and Transcriptome Data Analysis Reveal Bidirectional Causal Relationships and Mechanisms between Type 2 Diabetes and Gastric Cancer.
Article in Current medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of three-stage fusion nursing intervention the rehabilitation process and psychological stress in patients after gastric cancer surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
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
Abstract
introductionGastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common cancer globally, and the relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cancer risk remains controversial.
methodsWe performed Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using publicly available GWAS data to assess the causal relationship between T2DM and GC, validated by heterogeneity and pleiotropy analyses. Transcriptomic data from TCGA and GEO were analyzed to identify common differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) was used to construct a prognostic risk model. Drug sensitivity and immune infiltration were evaluated using GDSC and ImmuCellAI, respectively. Additionally, gene mutation analysis was conducted using TCGA data.
resultsThe Mendelian randomization analysis revealed a causal relationship between T2DM and GC at the genetic level. Specifically, the causal effect of T2DM on GC was estimated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.32 (95% CI: 1.12-1.56), while the reverse causal effect of GC on T2DM was estimated at an OR of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.67-0.91). Sensitivity analyses, including Cochran's Q test and the leave-one-out test, confirmed the robustness of these findings. We constructed a prognostic risk score consisting of three T2DM- related genes (CST2, PSAPL1, and C4orf48) based on transcriptome data analysis. Patients with high-risk scores exhibited significantly worse overall survival (OS) (p < 0.05). Cox regression analysis further confirmed the independent predictive value of the risk score for GC prognosis. Our predictive model demonstrated good performance, with an AUC of 0.786 in the training set and 0.757 in the validation set. Gene enrichment analysis indicated that the genes shared between T2DM and GC were associated with inflammatory response, immune response, and metabolic pathways. Tumor immune microenvironment analysis suggested that immune evasion mechanisms may play a key role in developing GC in patients with coexisting T2DM.
conclusionT2DM is associated with reduced GC risk. The risk score and model may help guide GC prognosis and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39835552What 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.