Coagulation factors and the incidence of COVID-19 severity: Mendelian randomization analyses and supporting evidence

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.20.20235440: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study is also subject to some data limitations. First, only genome-wide significant variants were available from existing GWAS results of VWF/ADAMTS13 and most of investigated coagulator factors, which makes it impossible to perform bi-directional MR analysis, and such limited number of instrumental SNPs for particular coagulation factors could affect the accuracy of both MR and PRS estimations. Similar to recent PRS studies on CAD 65 and ischemic stroke 66, we observed that incorporation of genetic component significantly contributes the prediction model but only slightly improves the overall performance. The significant association between VWF PRS and COVID-19 severity indicated that the information captured by VWF PRS is not fully explained by other risk factors. But the current PRS study on COVID-19 cohort is likely underpowered due to insufficient sample size, the borderline significance required a larger study to ascertain the accuracy. Second, genetic risk loci for coagulation factors may vary among different populations 67, 68, but our study mainly focuses people from European descent. Whether there are population-specific causal mechanisms needs further exploration. Also, we didn’t investigate gender- or age-specific effects because of the lack of gender- or age-stratified GWAS data. Last, the sample size of severe COVID-19 GWAS is still insufficient in current stage, and further research is warranted when abundant and non-European ethnic GWAS data is available i...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.