Mixed evidence for the relationship between periodontitis and Alzheimer’s disease: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent experimental studies indicated that a periodontitis-causing bacterium might be a causal factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We applied a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to examine the potential causal relationship between chronic periodontitis and AD bidirectionally in the population of European ancestry. We used publicly available data of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on periodontitis and AD. Five single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were used as instrumental variables for periodontitis. For the MR analysis of periodontitis on risk of AD, the causal odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived from the GWAS of periodontitis (4,924 cases vs. 7,301 controls) and from the GWAS of AD (21,982 cases vs. 41,944 controls). Seven non-overlapping SNPs from another latest GWAS of periodontitis was used to validate the above association. Twenty SNPs were used as instrumental variables for AD. For the MR analysis of liability to AD on risk of periodontitis, the causal OR was derived from the GWAS of AD including 30,344 cases and 52,427 controls and from the GWAS of periodontitis consisted of 12,289 cases and 22,326 controls. We employed multiple methods of MR. Using the five SNPs as instruments of periodontitis, there was suggestive evidence of genetically predicted periodontitis being associated with a higher risk of AD (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.19, P = 0.02). However, this association was not verified using the seven independent SNPs (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08, P = 0.59). There was no association of genetically predicted AD with the risk of periodontitis (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04, P = 0.85). In summary, we did not find convincing evidence to support periodontitis being a causal factor for the development of AD. There was also limited evidence to suggest genetic liability to AD being associated with the risk of periodontitis.
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 | 0.114 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".