Assessing the Causal Relationships Between Insulin Resistance and Hyperuricemia and Gout Using Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hyperuricemia is closely associated with insulin resistance syndrome (and its many cardiometabolic sequelae); however, whether they are causally related has long been debated. We undertook this study to investigate the potential causal nature and direction between insulin resistance and hyperuricemia, along with gout, by using bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. METHODS: We used genome-wide association data (n = 288,649 for serum urate [SU] concentration; n = 763,813 for gout risk; n = 153,525 for fasting insulin) to select genetic instruments for 2-sample MR analyses, using multiple MR methods to address potential pleiotropic associations. We then used individual-level, electronic medical record-linked data from the UK Biobank (n = 360,453 persons of European ancestry) to replicate our analyses via single-sample MR analysis. RESULTS: Genetically determined SU levels, whether inferred from a polygenic score or strong individual loci, were not associated with fasting insulin concentrations. In contrast, genetically determined fasting insulin concentrations were positively associated with SU levels (0.37 mg/dl per log-unit increase in fasting insulin [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.15, 0.58]; P = 0.001). This persisted in outlier-corrected (β = 0.56 mg/dl [95% CI 0.45, 0.67]) and multivariable MR analyses adjusted for BMI (β = 0.69 mg/dl [95% CI 0.53, 0.85]) (P < 0.001 for both). Polygenic scores for fasting insulin were also positively associated with SU level among individuals in the UK Biobank (P < 0.001). Findings for gout risk were bidirectionally consistent with those for SU level. CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence to clarify core questions about the close association between hyperuricemia and insulin resistance syndrome: hyperinsulinemia leads to hyperuricemia but not the other way around. Reducing insulin resistance could lower the SU level and gout risk, whereas lowering the SU level (e.g., allopurinol treatment) is unlikely to mitigate insulin resistance and its cardiometabolic sequelae.
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 | 0.027 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".