↓ Skip to main content

Obesity, metabolic factors and risk of different histological types of lung cancer: A Mendelian randomization study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Obesity, metabolic factors and risk of different histological types of lung cancer: A Mendelian randomization study
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0177875
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Carreras-Torres, Mattias Johansson, Philip C. Haycock, Kaitlin H. Wade, Caroline L. Relton, Richard M. Martin, George Davey Smith, Demetrius Albanes, Melinda C. Aldrich, Angeline Andrew, Susanne M. Arnold, Heike Bickeböller, Stig E. Bojesen, Hans Brunnström, Jonas Manjer, Irene Brüske, Neil E. Caporaso, Chu Chen, David C. Christiani, W. Jay Christian, Jennifer A. Doherty, Eric J. Duell, John K. Field, Michael P. A. Davies, Michael W. Marcus, Gary E. Goodman, Kjell Grankvist, Aage Haugen, Yun-Chul Hong, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Erik H. F. M. van der Heijden, Peter Kraft, Mikael B. Johansson, Stephen Lam, Maria Teresa Landi, Philip Lazarus, Loïc Le Marchand, Geoffrey Liu, Olle Melander, Sungshim L. Park, Gad Rennert, Angela Risch, Eric B. Haura, Ghislaine Scelo, David Zaridze, Anush Mukeriya, Milan Savić, Jolanta Lissowska, Beata Swiatkowska, Vladimir Janout, Ivana Holcatova, Dana Mates, Matthew B. Schabath, Hongbing Shen, Adonina Tardon, M Dawn Teare, Penella Woll, Ming-Sound Tsao, Xifeng Wu, Jian-Min Yuan, Rayjean J. Hung, Christopher I. Amos, James McKay, Paul Brennan

Abstract

Assessing the relationship between lung cancer and metabolic conditions is challenging because of the confounding effect of tobacco. Mendelian randomization (MR), or the use of genetic instrumental variables to assess causality, may help to identify the metabolic drivers of lung cancer. We identified genetic instruments for potential metabolic risk factors and evaluated these in relation to risk using 29,266 lung cancer cases (including 11,273 adenocarcinomas, 7,426 squamous cell and 2,664 small cell cases) and 56,450 controls. The MR risk analysis suggested a causal effect of body mass index (BMI) on lung cancer risk for two of the three major histological subtypes, with evidence of a risk increase for squamous cell carcinoma (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.20 [1.01-1.43] and for small cell lung cancer (OR [95%CI] = 1.52 [1.15-2.00]) for each standard deviation (SD) increase in BMI [4.6 kg/m2]), but not for adenocarcinoma (OR [95%CI] = 0.93 [0.79-1.08]) (Pheterogeneity = 4.3x10-3). Additional analysis using a genetic instrument for BMI showed that each SD increase in BMI increased cigarette consumption by 1.27 cigarettes per day (P = 2.1x10-3), providing novel evidence that a genetic susceptibility to obesity influences smoking patterns. There was also evidence that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was inversely associated with lung cancer overall risk (OR [95%CI] = 0.90 [0.84-0.97] per SD of 38 mg/dl), while fasting insulin was positively associated (OR [95%CI] = 1.63 [1.25-2.13] per SD of 44.4 pmol/l). Sensitivity analyses including a weighted-median approach and MR-Egger test did not detect other pleiotropic effects biasing the main results. Our results are consistent with a causal role of fasting insulin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in lung cancer etiology, as well as for BMI in squamous cell and small cell carcinoma. The latter relation may be mediated by a previously unrecognized effect of obesity on smoking behavior.

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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Professor 12 10%
Student > Master 11 9%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 39 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,824,280
of 24,187,594 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#35,156
of 208,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,606
of 320,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#730
of 4,223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,187,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 208,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 320,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.