ReviewJournal of neurology2026
Modifiable and clinically actionable exposures for vascular dementia: a structured evidence synthesis of Mendelian randomization studies.
Review in Journal of neurology, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVascular dementia (VaD) imposes a substantial global burden, yet prioritizing modifiable or clinically actionable exposures remains challenging due to confounding and reverse causation in observational studies. Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a genetic approach to strengthen causal inference, though current findings remain dispersed and difficult to interpret due to methodological heterogeneity. MAIN BODY: This structured evidence synthesis reviewed published primary MR studies evaluating modifiable or clinically actionable exposures relevant to VaD. We evaluated the interpretability and consistency of reported associations using a pragmatic evidence-prioritization framework (Tiers 1-3) that considers cross-estimator consistency, sensitivity analyses, and instrument strength to prioritize MR signals for further validation. The updated synthesis included 74 eligible primary MR studies, yielding 1002 method-specific MR estimates across multiple exposure domains. Higher-priority MR evidence was observed for cerebrovascular events, diabetes and hyperglycaemia, selected inflammatory and iron-handling markers, and neuropsychiatric traits including major depressive disorder and hearing loss. In contrast, MR evidence for several traditional risk factors, such as specific lipid fractions and blood pressure, was classified as Tier 2 or 3 due to inconsistent findings or heterogeneity, suggesting complex non-linear or time-dependent effects that differ from observational associations. SHORT
conclusionBy mapping heterogeneous MR findings onto an evidence-informed prioritization framework, this structured evidence synthesis distinguishes higher-priority MR signals from associations requiring further replication or mechanistic validation. This framework helps guide the prioritization of clinically relevant candidate signals for future mechanistic studies and informs the design of prevention strategies and clinical trials in vascular dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42334632What 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.