SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2025
Glucosamine supplementation contributes to reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes: Evidence from Mendelian randomization combined with a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveObservational studies on glucosamine supplementation and type 2 diabetes risk have shown inconsistent results, necessitating the use of Mendelian randomization to clarify the true causal relationship.MethodsThe glucosamine supplementation-related genome-wide association study dataset was obtained from the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit consortium, whereas type 2 diabetes-related genome-wide association study datasets were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (discovery) and Xue et al.'s meta-analysis (validation). Two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses were performed separately in the discovery and validation datasets, followed by meta-analysis and multivariable Mendelian randomization analyses to verify the robustness of the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization. The estimation of the causal relationship was conducted through the inverse variance weighted method.ResultsGlucosamine supplementation exhibited a significant protective effect against type 2 diabetes, as identified by two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis in the FinnGen consortium (odds ratio: 0.13, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.89) and validated in Xue et al.'s meta-analysis (odds ratio: 0.06, 95%; confidence interval: 0.01-0.29). A combined meta-analysis (odds ratio: 0.08, 95%; confidence interval: 0.02-0.27) of the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization confirmed the robustness of these findings. Additionally, multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis (odds ratio: 0.12, 95%; confidence interval: 0.02-0.94), after adjusting for confounding factors, supported the results of two-sample Mendelian randomization. No evidence of heterogeneity or pleiotropy was observed.ConclusionOverall, our results revealed that genetically predicted glucosamine supplementation was inversely associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes, highlighting the potential importance of glucosamine supplementation in preventing type 2 diabetes.
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.