MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4365457433 · doi:10.1111/apt.17471

Editorial: in search of environmental risk factors of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis with mendelian randomisation—authors' reply

2023· editorial· en· W4365457433 sur OpenAlexaff
Jie Chen, Xixian Ruan, Shuai Yuan, Evropi Τheodoratou, Jack Satsangi, Xue Li

Notice bibliographique

RevueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2023
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMicroscopic Colitis
Établissements canadiensCentre for Global Health Research
Organismes subventionnairesScience Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Zhejiang ProvinceCancer Research UK
Mots-clésMendelian randomizationMedicineConfoundingUlcerative colitisInflammatory bowel diseaseVitamin D and neurologyInternal medicineDiseaseObservational studyGenetic associationGastroenterologyImmunologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsBiologyGenetic variantsGenotype

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We thank Drs. Meyer, Amiot and Carbonnel for taking the time to consider in detail our research article and for sharing thoughts on its implications.1, 2 We agree that previous studies have not arrived at a consensus on the causal relationship of individual circulating antioxidants minerals, and vitamins with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and its subtypes. In the Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on three outcome datasets, we provided evidence that genetically determined higher levels of vitamin D were associated with decreased risk of Crohn's disease (CD). We also found a suggestive association between genetically determined higher levels of vitamin D and ulcerative colitis (UC) (p = 0.048). Consistent with our findings, a meta-analysis found that vitamin D deficiency was associated with increased risks of both CD and UC in Western populations based on 13 observational studies.3 However, a previous study found that high levels of plasma vitamin D were associated with high risks of UC in cross-sectional analysis, and reported a null finding on the association between vitamin D and IBD in MR analysis.4 The discrepancies could be explained by the residual confounding from unmeasured confounders or reverse causation, which could be a problem in a cross-sectional design. In addition, the weaker genetic association of vitamin D (captured by allele scores) and limited sample size in the previous study may have been factors in underestimating the potential association. Indeed, a previous MR study also failed to detect the association between vitamin D and IBD with a relatively limited sample size.5 We agree that MR usually examines nutrients individually, which means that it does not consider the complex interactions and relationships between different nutrients. Thus, more research on the interactions between different nutrients is essential. Nevertheless, evidence from MR has still provided new insights into the role of nutrients in disease pathophysiology. In our study, MR with adjustment for body mass index (BMI), smoking and body fat percentage was not performed, as these data were not available in the genome-wide association studies that we used. In the future, it will be beneficial to conduct MR studies with adjustments for these confounding factors, if more comprehensive genetic data become available. In conclusion, MR is a useful methodology for examining the causal relationship of circulating antioxidants, minerals and vitamins with IBD. Meanwhile, we agree with Drs. Meyer, Amiot and Carbonnel that it is important to acknowledge the complex nature of nutrient interactions and relationships in the context of overall dietary patterns, and that MR results must be interpreted with caution. In addition, more large-scale, publicly available genome-wide association studies of nutrients and IBD will help better understand the causal association between circulating nutrients and IBD. Jie Chen: Conceptualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Xixian Ruan: Conceptualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Shuai Yuan: Conceptualization (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal). Evropi Therdoratou: Conceptualization (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal). Jack Satsangi: Conceptualization (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal). Xue Li: Conceptualization (equal); writing – review and editing (lead). Declaration of personal interests: The authors' declarations of personal and financial interests are unchanged from those in the original article.1 XL is supported by the Natural Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Zhejiang Province (LR22H260001) and the National Nature Science Foundation of China (82204019). ET is supported by a CRUK Career Development Fellowship (C31250/A22804). This article is linked to Chen et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17392 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17432

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,076

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,086
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,004
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0070,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0230,028
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,011

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,320
Écart entre enseignants0,303 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsMême sujetMicroscopic ColitisTravaux en français237 207