Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41957283›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2026

PHEWAS, TWAS, Mendelian Randomization in Osteoporosis Research: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Siwen Li, Katerina Trajanoska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Siwen LiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Katerina TrajanoskaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. k.trajanoska@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWhile GWAS has identified many loci associated with bone mineral density (BMD), translating these findings into functional insights and treatments remains challenging. Post-GWAS methods such as Transcriptome-Wide Association Study (TWAS), Phenome-Wide Association Study (PheWAS), and Mendelian Randomization (MR) provide complementary strategies to prioritize genes and causal risk factors. This review summarizes findings from these studies. RECENT

findingsTWASs have identified many potential causal genes for BMD, but only a few, such as PPP6R3, have been confirmed through functional validation. Several MR studies have provided increasing evidence of causal relationships between inflammatory bowel disease, NAFLD, COPD, and lower BMD, along with a higher risk of osteoporosis. PheWAS and MR also identify bone marrow fat as a risk factor for decreased BMD. It is essential to bridge the critical gap between statistical discovery and biological validation. Moreover, the lack of bone-specific transcriptomic data remains a significant limitation, underscoring the need to generate such datasets. At the same time, all MR evidence should be corroborated with other sources to strengthen causal conclusions.

Indexed as

Bone DensityGenome-Wide Association StudyMendelian Randomization AnalysisOsteoporosisGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesRisk FactorsTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID41957283
PMCPMC13065573

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.