ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Disentangling the causal effects of education and participation bias on Alzheimer's disease using Mendelian Randomization.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: People with university degrees have a lower incidence of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). However, the relationship between education and AD could be due to selection, collider, and ascertainment biases, such as lower familiarity with cognitive testing or the fact that those with degrees are more likely to participate in research. Here, we use two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) to investigate the causal relationships between education, participation, and AD. Method: We used genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics for educational attainment, three different measures of participation, AD (clinically diagnosed AD), and AD/ADRD (clinical diagnosis and family history of AD and related dementias). Independent genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were extracted from the exposure summary statistics and harmonized with the outcome SNPs. Fixed-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analysis was the primary MR method; Cochran's Q statistic and MR Egger intercept were used to test for heterogeneity and pleiotropy, and Radial-MR was used to identify outliers. Sensitivity analyses included MR Egger, Weighted Median, and Weighted mode. Bidirectional analyses were used to test if AD pathology affects participation and multivariable MR (MVMR) assessed independent exposure-outcome effects. Results: Educational attainment reduced the risk of AD (OR Conclusion: Univariate MR analyses indicated that education and participation reduced the risk of AD. However, MR also suggested that education increased the risk of AD/ADRD, highlighting the inconsistencies between clinical and proxy diagnoses of AD, as proxy-AD may be affected by selection, collider, or ascertainment bias. MVMR indicated that participation is unlikely to explain the effect of education on AD identified in MR, and the protective effect of educational attainment may be due to other biological mechanisms, such as cognitive reserve.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.