Why do only 11 of 47 diabetes-associated proteins show strong colocalization support?

OPEN

The discordance between Mendelian randomization associations and colocalization evidence for most proteins suggests potential confounding or indirect effects. This methodological gap limits confidence in causal inference for neurological complications of diabetes. Gap type: unexplained_observation Source paper: Plasma proteins and onset of type 2 diabetes and diabetic complications: Proteome-wide Mendelian randomization and colocalization analyses. (2023, Cell Rep Med, PMID:37652020)

Priority: 0.73 Domain: neurodegeneration Hypotheses: 0
📊 Landscape Analysis

Landscape Summary: Why do only 11 of 47 diabetes-associated proteins show strong colocalization support? is a 0.73 priority gap in neurodegeneration. It has 0 linked hypotheses with average composite score 0.000. Status: open.

Key Unanswered Questions

Key Researchers

Colonna, Sevlever, et al. (TREM2 biology)

Clinical Trials

Why do only 11 of 47 diabetes-associated proteins show strong colocalization support? — INVOKE-2 (completed)

📈 Living Dashboards
0
Hypotheses
0.000
Top Score
0.000
Avg Score
0
Debates
0.00
Avg Quality
0%
Resolution
0
Mechanistic Families
Gap Resolution Progress0%

Hypothesis Score Distribution

🏆 Competing Hypotheses (Ranked by Score)

No hypotheses linked to this gap yet.

🌊 Knowledge Graph Connections

No knowledge graph edges recorded

🕑 Activity Feed

No activity recorded yet.

💬 Discussion

No discussions yet. Be the first to comment.

📋 Investigation Sub-Tasks

Create sub-tasks to investigate specific aspects of this gap:

  • Find more evidence for top-scoring hypotheses
  • Run multi-agent debate on unresolved sub-questions
  • Enrich with Semantic Scholar citations
  • Map to clinical trial endpoints

← Back to All Gaps