Sex Differences in the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease Associated With Type 2 Diabetes: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Observational studies have demonstrated that type 2 diabetes is a stronger risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) in women compared with men. However, it is not clear whether this reflects a sex differential in the causal effect of diabetes on CHD risk or results from sex-specific residual confounding. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using 270 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for type 2 diabetes identified in a type 2 diabetes genome-wide association study, we performed a sex-stratified Mendelian randomization (MR) study of type 2 diabetes and CHD using individual participant data in UK Biobank (251,420 women and 212,049 men). Weighted median, MR-Egger, MR-pleiotropy residual sum and outlier, and radial MR from summary-level analyses were used for pleiotropy assessment. RESULTS: MR analyses showed that genetic risk of type 2 diabetes increased the odds of CHD for women (odds ratio 1.13 [95% CI 1.08-1.18] per 1-log unit increase in odds of type 2 diabetes) and men (1.21 [1.17-1.26] per 1-log unit increase in odds of type 2 diabetes). Sensitivity analyses showed some evidence of directional pleiotropy; however, results were similar after correction for outlier SNPs. CONCLUSIONS: This MR analysis supports a causal effect of genetic liability to type 2 diabetes on risk of CHD that is not stronger for women than men. Assuming a lack of bias, these findings suggest that the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes for CHD risk reduction is of equal priority in both sexes.
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 | 0.045 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".