ArticleCurrent neurovascular research2025
Headache and Intracranial Aneurysm: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Study.
Article in Current neurovascular research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the impacts of type 2 diabetes and metformin use on Parkinson's disease: Mendelian randomization analysis and a national cohort study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Intracranial and Cervical Artery Abnormalities in Patients with Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Hypermobility Spectrum Disorders Presenting to an Academic Headache Clinic.Neurology international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHeadaches affect up to 95% of individuals during their lifetime and are a major global cause of disability. Intracranial Aneurysm (IA) is a cerebrovascular disorder affecting approximately 3.2% of the general population. Observational studies have suggested an association between headaches and IA, but the causal relationship remains unclear. This Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis aims to elucidate the causal relationship between headaches and IA.
methodsA two-sample bidirectional Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis was performed using publicly available Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) data to assess the causal relationships between IA and four headache subtypes, namely, Chronic Headache (CH), Tension- Type Headache (TTH), Migraine Without Aura (MO), and Migraine With Aura (MA). The inverse variance weighted method was employed as the primary method, with sensitivity analyses conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results. Mediation analysis was performed to investigate the potential mediating role of hypertension.
resultsThe MR analysis revealed that MO was associated with an increased risk of aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.422, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.054.1.918, and P = 0.021), while MA (OR = 1.527, 95% CI: 1.115.2.091, and P = 0.008) was associated with an elevated risk of unruptured IA (uIA). Mediation analysis indicated that hypertension did not significantly mediate these associations. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the potential role of MO in aSAH and MA in uIA, where hypertension does not serve as a significant mediator. Further research is necessary to investigate the underlying mechanisms, which may offer valuable insights into the prevention and management of IA.
conclusionBidirectional MR analysis of four headache subtypes and IA provides evidence that MO is associated with an increased risk of aSAH, while MA is linked to a higher risk of uIA. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the complex relationship between headaches and IA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40468925What 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.