ACE and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether ACE inhibitors reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes using a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A two-sample MR analysis included 17 independent genetic variants associated with ACE serum concentration in 4,147 participants from the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine INtervention (ORIGIN) (clinical trial reg. no. NCT00069784) trial, and their effects on type 2 diabetes risk were estimated from 18 studies of the DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) consortium. A genetic risk score (GRS) underpinning lower ACE concentration was then tested for association with type 2 diabetes prevalence in 341,872 participants, including 16,320 with type 2 diabetes, from the UK Biobank. MR estimates were compared after standardization for blood pressure change, with the estimate obtained from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) meta-analysis of ACE inhibitors versus placebo (n = 31,200). RESULTS Genetically lower ACE concentrations were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio [OR] per SD 0.92 [95% CI 0.89–0.95]; P = 1.79 × 10−7). This result was replicated in the UK Biobank (OR per SD 0.97 [0.96–0.99]; P = 8.73 × 10−4). After standardization, the ACE GRS was associated with a larger decrease in type 2 diabetes risk per 2.4-mmHg lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared with that obtained from an RCT meta-analysis (OR per 2.4-mmHg lower MAP 0.19 [0.07–0.51] vs. 0.76 [0.60–0.97], respectively; P = 0.007 for difference). CONCLUSIONS These results support the causal protective effect of ACE inhibitors on type 2 diabetes risk and may guide therapeutic decision making in clinical practice.
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 | 0.040 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".