Evidence mapPaperPMID 39256365Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2024

Testing the causal relationship of fat and sugar intake with depression and cortisol: a Mendelian Randomisation study.

Matylda Buczkowska, Eleonora Iob

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Matylda BuczkowskaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. zcbtucz@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0009-0007-5543-7508
Eleonora IobDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3617-0266

Funding

Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MC_PC_19009RCUK | Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) ES/T00200X/1, 2022-2026Wellcome Trust (Wellcome) 222750/Z/21/Z, 2021-2025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unhealthy diets high in fat and sugar content may have an impact on psychological health and increase the risk of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and stress levels. On the other hand, MDD and stress might be related to food choices and intake. However, it is not clear whether diet, and specifically fat and sugar intake, is causally related to stress and MDD, and whether this relationship may be bi-directional. This study utilised Mendelian Randomisation (MR) to investigate the causal nature of the relationship of fat and sugar intake with MDD and cortisol (as a proxy of stress), and to shed light on the direction of this relationship. Summary-level data for all exposure and outcome variables were obtained from large-scale, non-overlapping GWASs in individuals of European ancestry. Bidirectional analyses were performed: one with macronutrients as exposures and one with MDD/cortisol as exposures. Random-effects inverse-variance weighted regression was used as the primary analytic method for genetic instruments with at least two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) available (and individual Wald ratio was used when only one SNP was available). Higher levels of genetically predicted relative sugar intake were causally associated with lower MDD risk, for both genome-wide significant p-value threshold of p < 1 × 10

Indexed as

Dietary FatsGenome-Wide Association StudyHydrocortisoneMajor Depressive DisorderMendelian Randomization AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotideDietary SugarsFemaleHumansMaleStress, PsychologicalDietary FatsDietary SugarsHydrocortisone

Identifiers

PMID39256365
PMCPMC11387734

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.