Assessing the role of vascular risk factors in dementia: Mendelian randomization meta-analysis and comparison with observational estimates.

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics F1000Research Pub Date : 2025-02-07 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.121604.2
Liam Lee, Rosie Walker, William Whiteley
{"title":"Assessing the role of vascular risk factors in dementia: Mendelian randomization meta-analysis and comparison with observational estimates.","authors":"Liam Lee, Rosie Walker, William Whiteley","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.121604.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although observational studies demonstrate that higher levels of vascular risk factors are associated with an increased risk of dementia, these associations might be explained by confounding or other biases. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic instruments to test causal relationships in observational data. We sought to determine if genetically predicted modifiable risk factors (type 2 diabetes mellitus, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and circulating glucose) are associated with dementia by meta-analysing published MR studies. Secondary objectives were to identify heterogeneity in effect estimates across primary MR studies and to compare meta-analysis results with observational studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MR studies were identified by systematic search of Web of Science, OVID and Scopus. We selected primary MR studies investigating the modifiable risk factors of interest. Only one study from each cohort per risk factor was included. A quality assessment tool was developed to primarily assess the three assumptions of MR for each MR study. Data were extracted on study characteristics, exposure and outcome, effect estimates per unit increase, and measures of variation. Effect estimates were pooled to generate an overall estimate, I <sup>2</sup> and Cochrane Q values using fixed-effect model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 5211 studies and included 12 primary MR studies after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Higher genetically predicted body mass index was associated with a higher odds of dementia (OR 1.03 [1.01, 1.05] per 5 kg/m <sup>2</sup> increase, one study, p=0.00285). Fewer hypothesized vascular risk factors were supported by estimates from MR studies than estimates from meta-analyses of observational studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Genetically predicted body mass index was associated with an increase in risk of dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"11 ","pages":"565"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11880757/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121604.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although observational studies demonstrate that higher levels of vascular risk factors are associated with an increased risk of dementia, these associations might be explained by confounding or other biases. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic instruments to test causal relationships in observational data. We sought to determine if genetically predicted modifiable risk factors (type 2 diabetes mellitus, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and circulating glucose) are associated with dementia by meta-analysing published MR studies. Secondary objectives were to identify heterogeneity in effect estimates across primary MR studies and to compare meta-analysis results with observational studies.

Methods: MR studies were identified by systematic search of Web of Science, OVID and Scopus. We selected primary MR studies investigating the modifiable risk factors of interest. Only one study from each cohort per risk factor was included. A quality assessment tool was developed to primarily assess the three assumptions of MR for each MR study. Data were extracted on study characteristics, exposure and outcome, effect estimates per unit increase, and measures of variation. Effect estimates were pooled to generate an overall estimate, I 2 and Cochrane Q values using fixed-effect model.

Results: We screened 5211 studies and included 12 primary MR studies after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Higher genetically predicted body mass index was associated with a higher odds of dementia (OR 1.03 [1.01, 1.05] per 5 kg/m 2 increase, one study, p=0.00285). Fewer hypothesized vascular risk factors were supported by estimates from MR studies than estimates from meta-analyses of observational studies.

Conclusion: Genetically predicted body mass index was associated with an increase in risk of dementia.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
背景:尽管观察性研究表明,较高水平的血管风险因素与痴呆症风险的增加有关,但这些关联可能会被混杂因素或其他偏差所解释。孟德尔随机化(MR)利用遗传工具来检验观察数据中的因果关系。我们试图通过对已发表的 MR 研究进行元分析,确定遗传预测的可改变风险因素(2 型糖尿病、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇、总胆固醇、甘油三酯、收缩压、舒张压、体重指数和循环葡萄糖)是否与痴呆症相关。次要目标是确定主要MR研究中效应估计值的异质性,并将荟萃分析结果与观察性研究结果进行比较:通过对 Web of Science、OVID 和 Scopus 进行系统搜索,确定了磁共振研究。我们选择了调查相关可改变风险因素的主要 MR 研究。每个风险因素的每个队列只纳入一项研究。我们开发了一种质量评估工具,主要评估每项 MR 研究的三项 MR 假设。提取的数据包括研究特征、暴露和结果、每增加一个单位的效应估计值以及变异度量。使用固定效应模型对效应估计值进行汇总,以得出总体估计值、I 2 和 Cochrane Q 值:我们筛选了 5211 项研究,采用纳入和排除标准后纳入了 12 项主要 MR 研究。较高的遗传预测体重指数与较高的痴呆几率相关(OR 1.03 [1.01, 1.05],每增加 5 kg/m 2,一项研究,P=0.00285)。与观察性研究荟萃分析的估计结果相比,MR 研究的估计结果支持的假设血管风险因素更少:结论:基因预测的体重指数与痴呆症风险的增加有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.
期刊最新文献
Recent Advances in Biopesticide Research and Development with a Focus on Microbials. Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan. Unsteady MHD flow of tangent hyperbolic ternary hybrid nanofluid in a darcy-forchheimer porous medium over a permeable stretching sheet with variable thermal conductivity. Role, function, and expectations of research funding committees: Perspectives from committee members. Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1