Mendelian randomization study shows no causal relationship between circulating urate levels and Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Observational studies have shown that increased plasma urate is associated with lower risk of Parkinson's disease (PD), but these studies were not designed to test causality. If a causal relationship exists, then modulating plasma urate levels could be a potential preventive avenue for PD. We used a large two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) design to assess for a causal relationship between plasma urate and PD risk. METHODS: We used a genetic instrument consisting of 31 independent loci for plasma urate on a case-control genome-wide association study data set, which included 13,708 PD cases and 95,282 controls. Individual effect estimates for each SNP were combined using the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method. Two additional methods, MR-Egger and a penalized weighted median (PWM)-based approach, were used to assess potential bias attributed to pleiotropy or invalid instruments. RESULTS: We found no evidence for a causal relationship between urate and PD, with an effect estimate from the IVW method of odds ratio (OR) 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.20) per 1-standard-deviation increase in plasma urate levels. MR Egger and PWM analyses yielded similar estimates (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.17] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.86-1.14], respectively). INTERPRETATION: We did not find evidence for a linear causal protective effect by urate on PD risk. The associations observed in previous observational studies may be, in part, attributed to confounding or reverse causality. In the context of the present findings, strategies to elevate circulating urate levels may not reduce overall PD risk. Ann Neurol 2018;84:191-199.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".