Genetically predicted body mass index and Alzheimer's disease–related phenotypes in three large samples: Mendelian randomization analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational research shows that higher body mass index (BMI) increases Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk, but it is unclear whether this association is causal. We applied genetic variants that predict BMI in Mendelian randomization analyses, an approach that is not biased by reverse causation or confounding, to evaluate whether higher BMI increases AD risk. We evaluated individual-level data from the AD Genetics Consortium (ADGC: 10,079 AD cases and 9613 controls), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS: 8403 participants with algorithm-predicted dementia status), and published associations from the Genetic and Environmental Risk for AD consortium (GERAD1: 3177 AD cases and 7277 controls). No evidence from individual single-nucleotide polymorphisms or polygenic scores indicated BMI increased AD risk. Mendelian randomization effect estimates per BMI point (95% confidence intervals) were as follows: ADGC, odds ratio (OR) = 0.95 (0.90-1.01); HRS, OR = 1.00 (0.75-1.32); GERAD1, OR = 0.96 (0.87-1.07). One subscore (cellular processes not otherwise specified) unexpectedly predicted lower AD risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".