Large differences in adiponectin levels have no clear effect on multiple sclerosis risk: A Mendelian randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have demonstrated strong support for an association between genetically increased body mass index and risk of multiple sclerosis (MS). The adipokine adiponectin may be a potential mechanism linking body mass to risk of MS. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether genetically increased adiponectin levels influence risk of MS. METHODS: Using genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for adiponectin, we undertook an MR study to estimate the effect of adiponectin on MS. This method prevents bias due to reverse causation and minimizes bias due to confounding. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the assumptions of MR. RESULTS: MR analyses did not support a role for genetically elevated adiponectin in risk of MS (odds ratio (OR) = 0.93 per unit increase in natural-log-transformed adiponectin, equivalent to a two-standard deviation increase in adiponectin on the absolute scale; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.66-1.33; p = 0.61). Further MR analysis suggested that genetic variation at the adiponectin gene, which influences adiponectin level, does not impact MS risk. Sensitivity analyses, including MR-Egger regression, suggested no bias due to pleiotropy. CONCLUSION: Lifelong genetically increased adiponectin levels in humans have no clear effect on risk of MS. Other biological factors driving the association between body mass and MS should be investigated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".