Genetically Decreased Circulating Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Osteoporosis Outcomes: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is important for bone formation and has been associated with osteoporosis in humans. Therefore, we conducted a two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test whether genetically decreased circulating VEGF was associated with decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk of fracture. Summary statistics from a genomewide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis of circulating VEGF level (n = 16,112) were used to identify 10 genetic variants explaining up to 52% of the variance in circulating VEGF levels. GWAS meta-analyses on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived BMD of forearm, lumbar spine, and femoral neck (n = up to 32,735) and BMD estimated from heel calcaneus ultrasound (eBMD) (n = 426,824) were used to assess the effect of genetically lowered circulating VEGF levels on BMD. A GWAS meta-analysis including a total of 76,549 cases and 470,164 controls was used to assess the effect of genetically lowered circulating VEGF levels on risk of fracture. A natural log-transformed pg/mL decrease in circulating VEGF levels was not associated with a decrease in forearm BMD (0.02 standard deviation [SD], 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.024 to 0.064, p = 0.38), lumbar spine BMD (-0.005 SD, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.019, p = 0.67), femoral neck BMD (0.004 SD, 95% CI -0.017 to 0.026, p = 0.68), eBMD (-0.006 SD, 95% CI -0.012 to -0.001, p = 0.031) or risk of fracture (odds ratio = 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.0, p = 0.37) in inverse-variance-weighted Mendelian randomization analyses. Sensitivity analyses did not provide evidence that our results were influenced by pleiotropy. Genetically lowered circulating VEGF was not associated with a decrease in BMD or increased risk of fracture, suggesting that efforts to influence circulating VEGF level are unlikely to have beneficial effects on osteoporosis outcomes and that previous observational associations of circulating VEGF with BMD were influenced by confounding or reverse causation. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".