Little evidence for an effect of smoking on multiple sclerosis risk: A Mendelian Randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The causes of multiple sclerosis (MS) remain unknown. Smoking has been associated with MS in observational studies and is often thought of as an environmental risk factor. We used two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) to examine whether this association is causal using genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies (GWASs) as associated with smoking. We assessed both smoking initiation and lifetime smoking behaviour (which captures smoking duration, heaviness, and cessation). There was very limited evidence for a meaningful effect of smoking on MS susceptibility as measured using summary statistics from the International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics Consortium (IMSGC) meta-analysis, including 14,802 cases and 26,703 controls. There was no clear evidence for an effect of smoking on the risk of developing MS (smoking initiation: odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.61; lifetime smoking: OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.40). These findings suggest that smoking does not have a detrimental consequence on MS susceptibility. Further work is needed to determine the causal effect of smoking on MS progression.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".