Causal relationships between risk of venous thromboembolism and 18 cancers: a bidirectional Mendelian randomisation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: People with cancer experience high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Additionally, risk of subsequent cancer is increased in people experiencing their first VTE. The causal mechanisms underlying this association are not completely understood, and it is unknown whether VTE is itself a risk factor for cancer. Methods: We used data from large genome-wide association study meta-analyses to perform bi-directional Mendelian randomisation analyses to estimate causal associations between genetically-proxied lifetime risk of VTE and risk of 18 different cancers. Results: We found no conclusive evidence that genetically-proxied lifetime risk of VTE was causally associated with an increased incidence of cancer, or vice-versa. We observed an association between VTE and pancreatic cancer risk (odds ratio for pancreatic cancer 1.23 (95% confidence interval 1.08 - 1.40) per log-odds increase in risk of VTE, P = 0.002). However, sensitivity analyses revealed this association was predominantly driven by a variant proxying non-O blood group, with inadequate evidence from Mendelian randomisation to suggest a causal relationship. Conclusions: These findings do not support the hypothesis that genetically-proxied lifetime risk of VTE is a cause of cancer. Existing observational epidemiological associations between VTE and cancer are therefore more likely to be driven by pathophysiological changes which occur in the setting of active cancer and anti-cancer treatments. Further work is required to explore and synthesise evidence for these mechanisms. Key messages 1) There is strong observational evidence that active cancer is associated with venous thromboembolism. 2) It is currently unknown whether venous thromboembolism is a risk factor for cancer. 3) We applied a bi-directional Mendelian randomisation framework to appraise the causal relationships between genetically-proxied risk of venous thromboembolism and 18 different cancers. 4) Overall, there was no clear evidence from Mendelian randomisation that lifetime-elevated risk of venous thromboembolism is causally associated with an increased risk of cancer, or visa versa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.099 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".