↓ Skip to main content

Adult body mass index and risk of ovarian cancer by subtype: a Mendelian randomization study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Epidemiology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Adult body mass index and risk of ovarian cancer by subtype: a Mendelian randomization study
Published in
International Journal of Epidemiology, July 2016
DOI 10.1093/ije/dyw158
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne C Dixon, Christina M Nagle, Aaron P Thrift, Paul DP Pharoah, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Wei Zheng, Jodie N Painter, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Peter A Fasching, Matthias W Beckmann, Diether Lambrechts, Ignace Vergote, Sandrina Lambrechts, Els Van Nieuwenhuysen, Mary Anne Rossing, Jennifer A Doherty, Kristine G Wicklund, Jenny Chang-Claude, Anja Rudolph, Kirsten B Moysich, Kunle Odunsi, Marc T Goodman, Lynne R Wilkens, Pamela J Thompson, Yurii B Shvetsov, Thilo Dörk, Tjoung-Won Park-Simon, Peter Hillemanns, Natalia Bogdanova, Ralf Butzow, Heli Nevanlinna, Liisa M Pelttari, Arto Leminen, Francesmary Modugno, Roberta B Ness, Robert P Edwards, Joseph L Kelley, Florian Heitz, Beth Y Karlan, Susanne K Kjær, Estrid Høgdall, Allan Jensen, Ellen L Goode, Brooke L Fridley, Julie M Cunningham, Stacey J Winham, Graham G Giles, Fiona Bruinsma, Roger L Milne, Melissa C Southey, Michelle A T Hildebrandt, Xifeng Wu, Karen H Lu, Dong Liang, Douglas A Levine, Maria Bisogna, Joellen M Schildkraut, Andrew Berchuck, Daniel W Cramer, Kathryn L Terry, Elisa V Bandera, Sara H Olson, Helga B Salvesen, Liv Cecilie Thomsen, Reidun K Kopperud, Line Bjorge, Lambertus A Kiemeney, Leon F A G Massuger, Tanja Pejovic, Linda S Cook, Nhu D Le, Kenneth D Swenerton, Angela Brooks-Wilson, Linda E Kelemen, Jan Lubiński, Tomasz Huzarski, Jacek Gronwald, Janusz Menkiszak, Nicolas Wentzensen, Louise Brinton, Hannah Yang, Jolanta Lissowska, Claus K Høgdall, Lene Lundvall, Honglin Song, Jonathan P Tyrer, Ian Campbell, Diana Eccles, James Paul, Rosalind Glasspool, Nadeem Siddiqui, Alice S Whittemore, Weiva Sieh, Valerie McGuire, Joseph H Rothstein, Steven A Narod, Catherine Phelan, Harvey A Risch, John R McLaughlin, Hoda Anton-Culver, Argyrios Ziogas, Usha Menon, Simon A Gayther, Susan J Ramus, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Anna H Wu, Malcolm C Pike, Chiu-Chen Tseng, Jolanta Kupryjanczyk, Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska, Agnieszka Budzilowska, Beata Spiewankiewicz, Penelope M Webb

Abstract

Observational studies have reported a positive association between body mass index (BMI) and ovarian cancer risk. However, questions remain as to whether this represents a causal effect, or holds for all histological subtypes. The lack of association observed for serous cancers may, for instance, be due to disease-associated weight loss. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic markers as proxies for risk factors to overcome limitations of observational studies. We used MR to elucidate the relationship between BMI and ovarian cancer, hypothesizing that genetically predicted BMI would be associated with increased risk of non-high grade serous ovarian cancers (non-HGSC) but not HGSC. We pooled data from 39 studies (14 047 cases, 23 003 controls) in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. We constructed a weighted genetic risk score (GRS, partial F-statistic = 172), summing alleles at 87 single nucleotide polymorphisms previously associated with BMI, weighting by their published strength of association with BMI. Applying two-stage predictor-substitution MR, we used logistic regression to estimate study-specific odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between genetically predicted BMI and risk, and pooled these using random-effects meta-analysis. Higher genetically predicted BMI was associated with increased risk of non-HGSC (pooled OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61 per 5 units BMI) but not HGSC (pooled OR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.88-1.27). Secondary analyses stratified by behaviour/subtype suggested that, consistent with observational data, the association was strongest for low-grade/borderline serous cancers (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.33-2.81). Our data suggest that higher BMI increases risk of non-HGSC, but not the more common and aggressive HGSC subtype, confirming the observational evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 113 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 7 6%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 42 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#5,498,486
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Epidemiology
#2,421
of 5,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,478
of 353,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Epidemiology
#38
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 353,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.