ArticleERJ open research2025
Sex-specific genetic effects on susceptibility to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
Article in ERJ open 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
41 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic lung condition that is more prevalent in males than females. The reasons for this are not fully understood; differing environmental exposures due to historically sex-biased occupations and diagnostic bias are possible explanations. To date, over 20 independent genetic association signals have been reported for IPF susceptibility, but these have been discovered when combining males and females. The objectives of the present study were to assess whether there is a need to consider sex-specific effects when evaluating genetic risk in clinical prediction models for IPF and to test for sex-specific associations with IPF susceptibility. Methods: We performed a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-by-sex interaction study meta-analysis of IPF risk in six independent case-control studies comprising 4561 cases (1280 females, 3281 males) and 22 888 controls (8360 females, 14 528 males) of European genetic ancestry. We used polygenic risk scores (PRSs) comprising common (minor allele frequency >1%) autosomal variants to assess differences in genetic risk prediction between males and females. Results: The predictive accuracy of the PRSs were similar between males and females, regardless of whether using combined or sex-specific association results. Three new independent genetic association signals were identified (p<1×10 Conclusions: The predictive accuracy of common autosomal SNP-based PRSs did not vary significantly between males and females. We prioritised three genetic variants whose effect on IPF risk may be modified by sex. These findings would not account for the differences in prevalence between males and females. Future studies should ensure adequate representation of both sexes.
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.