ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Gallbladder disease and colorectal cancer: a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Discover oncology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether a bidirectional causal relationship exists between gallbladder disease and colorectal cancer (CRC) using a two-sample, bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) approach based on genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics.
methodsWe used European-ancestry data from the IEU OpenGWAS project within the UK Biobank. In the forward MR analysis, gallbladder disease was treated as the exposure and CRC as the outcome; in the reverse analysis, genetic liability to CRC was treated as the exposure and gallbladder disease as the outcome. The inverse variance weighted (IVW) method served as the primary analysis, supplemented by MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode methods. Instrument strength was evaluated using F statistics (F > 10 as the threshold for strong instruments). Sensitivity analyses included MR-Egger intercept tests for horizontal pleiotropy, Cochran's Q tests for heterogeneity, leave-one-out analyses, and visual inspection of funnel plots.
resultsIn the forward analysis, 19 independent SNPs significantly associated with gallbladder disease were included, all with F statistics > 10. IVW analysis showed no significant causal association between gallbladder disease and CRC risk (odds ratio 95% confidence interval including 1, P > 0.05), and the results from MR-Egger, weighted median, and mode-based methods were directionally consistent. Some heterogeneity was observed, but there was no evidence of substantial horizontal pleiotropy, and leave-one-out and funnel plot analyses supported the robustness of the findings. In the reverse analysis, 30 SNPs associated with CRC were retained, again all with F statistics > 10. IVW and complementary MR methods consistently indicated no significant causal effect of genetic liability to CRC on the risk of gallbladder disease (P > 0.05), with no notable heterogeneity or pleiotropy detected and broadly stable sensitivity analysis results.
conclusionThis two-sample, bidirectional MR study found no evidence for a causal relationship in either direction between gallbladder disease and CRC, suggesting that gallbladder disease and its genetic susceptibility are unlikely to be major genetic drivers of colorectal carcinogenesis. Individuals should not be classified as high-risk for CRC solely on the basis of gallbladder disease or cholecystectomy history, although coexisting metabolic risk factors still warrant comprehensive management and further study.
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.