↓ Skip to main content

The causal relevance of body mass index in different histological types of lung cancer: A Mendelian randomization study

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The causal relevance of body mass index in different histological types of lung cancer: A Mendelian randomization study
Published in
Scientific Reports, August 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep31121
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Carreras-Torres, Philip C. Haycock, Caroline L. Relton, Richard M. Martin, George Davey Smith, Peter Kraft, Chi Gao, Shelley Tworoger, Loïc Le Marchand, Lynne R. Wilkens, Sungshim L. Park, Christopher Haiman, John K. Field, Michael Davies, Michael Marcus, Geoffrey Liu, Neil E. Caporaso, David C. Christiani, Yongyue Wei, Chu Chen, Jennifer A. Doherty, Gianluca Severi, Gary E. Goodman, Rayjean J. Hung, Christopher I. Amos, James McKay, Mattias Johansson, Paul Brennan

Abstract

Body mass index (BMI) is inversely associated with lung cancer risk in observational studies, even though it increases the risk of several other cancers, which could indicate confounding by tobacco smoking or reverse causality. We used the two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to circumvent these limitations of observational epidemiology by constructing a genetic instrument for BMI, based on results from the GIANT consortium, which was evaluated in relation to lung cancer risk using GWAS results on 16,572 lung cancer cases and 21,480 controls. Results were stratified by histological subtype, smoking status and sex. An increase of one standard deviation (SD) in BMI (4.65 Kg/m(2)) raised the risk for lung cancer overall (OR = 1.13; P = 0.10). This was driven by associations with squamous cell (SQ) carcinoma (OR = 1.45; P = 1.2 × 10(-3)) and small cell (SC) carcinoma (OR = 1.81; P = 0.01). An inverse trend was seen for adenocarcinoma (AD) (OR = 0.82; P = 0.06). In stratified analyses, a 1 SD increase in BMI was inversely associated with overall lung cancer in never smokers (OR = 0.50; P = 0.02). These results indicate that higher BMI may increase the risk of certain types of lung cancer, in particular SQ and SC carcinoma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Professor 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,476,553
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#61,137
of 123,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,180
of 367,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,746
of 3,683 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,683 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.