ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Systematic comparison of observational and Mendelian Randomization estimates for cardiometabolic proteomic signatures.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Proteomic Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have gained widespread interest due to their potential to reveal novel therapeutic targets. Discrepancies are often reported between observational and genetic estimates of protein-trait associations, but the factors influencing directional agreement remain poorly understood. We systematically evaluated overlaps and directional agreement between observational associations and bi-directional two-sample MR estimates for 7,288 serum protein measurements across 25 cardiometabolic traits in the AGES-RS cohort (n = 5,364). Overall, our findings demonstrate that the proteomic signatures of cardiometabolic traits appear to be predominantly shaped by reverse causation, as observational associations significantly overlapped with those from the reverse (protein → phenotype) MR and showed nearly uniform directional agreement (median 100%). By contrast, observational signatures did generally not enrich for forward (phenotype → protein) MR associations and showed only weak directional agreement (median 55%), suggesting the two approaches largely capture orthogonal biological pathways where causal signals potentially reflect the effects of widespread molecular pleiotropy. Restricting causal analyses to observationally significant proteins proved both limiting and redundant, disproportionately enriching for reverse and ambiguous causal associations. Coding variant burden was the strongest positive predictor of directional agreement for forward MR estimates, possibly reflecting their direct effects on protein structure and function. Although forward MR remains a valuable approach for prioritizing causal candidates, our findings caution against interpreting circulating levels as direct causal exposures.
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.