The Parkinson’s Disease Mendelian Randomization Research Portal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method for exploring observational associations to find evidence of causality. Objective To apply MR between multiple risk factors/phenotypic traits (exposures) and Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a large, unbiased manner, and to create a public resource for research. Methods We used two-sample MR in which the summary statistics relating to SNPs from genome wide association studies (GWASes) of 5,839 exposures curated on MR Base were used to assess causal relationships with PD. We selected the highest quality exposure GWASes for this report (n=401). For the disease outcome, summary statistics from the largest published PD GWAS were used. For each exposure, the causal effect on PD was assessed using the inverse variance weighted (IVW) method, followed by a range of sensitivity analyses. We used a false discovery rate (FDR) corrected p-value of <0.05 from the IVW analysis to prioritize traits of interest. Results We observed evidence for causal associations between twelve exposures and risk of PD. Of these, nine were causal effects related to increasing adiposity and decreasing risk of PD. The remaining top exposures that affected PD risk were tea drinking, time spent watching television and forced vital capacity, but the latter two appeared to be biased by violations of underlying MR assumptions. Discussion We present a new platform which offers MR analyses for a total of 5,839 GWASes versus the largest PD GWASes available ( https://pdgenetics.shinyapps.io/pdgenetics/ ). Alongside, we report further evidence to support a causal role for adiposity on lowering the risk of PD.
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 | 0.049 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.310 | 0.115 |
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".