Using Mendelian randomization to explore the gateway hypothesis: possible causal effects of smoking initiation and alcohol consumption on substance use outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Initial use of drugs such as tobacco and alcohol may lead to subsequent more problematic drug use—the ‘gateway’ hypothesis. However, observed associations may be due to a shared underlying risk factor, such as trait impulsivity. We used bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) to test the gateway hypothesis. Design Our main method was inverse‐variance weighted (IVW) MR, with other methods included as sensitivity analyses (where consistent results across methods would raise confidence in our primary results). MR is a genetic instrumental variable approach used to support stronger causal inference in observational studies. Setting and participants Genome‐wide association summary data among European ancestry individuals for smoking initiation, alcoholic drinks per week, cannabis use and dependence, cocaine and opioid dependence ( n = 1749–1 232 091). Measurements Genetic variants for exposure. Findings We found evidence of causal effects from smoking initiation to increased drinks per week [(IVW): β = 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.03–0.09; P = 9.44 × 10 −06 ], cannabis use [IVW: odds ratio (OR) = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.24–1.44; P = 1.95 × 10 −14 ] and cannabis dependence (IVW: OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 1.12–2.51; P = 0.01). We also found evidence of an effect of cannabis use on the increased likelihood of smoking initiation (IVW: OR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.08–1.80; P = 0.01). We did not find evidence of an effect of drinks per week on other substance use outcomes, except weak evidence of an effect on cannabis use (IVW: OR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.16–1.93; P ‐value = 0.35). We found weak evidence of an effect of opioid dependence on increased drinks per week (IVW: β = 0.002; 95% CI = 0.0005–0.003; P = 8.61 × 10 −03 ). Conclusions Bidirectional Mendelian randomization testing of the gateway hypothesis reveals that smoking initiation may lead to increased alcohol consumption, cannabis use and cannabis dependence. Cannabis use may also lead to smoking initiation and opioid dependence to alcohol consumption. However, given that tobacco and alcohol use typically begin before other drug use, these results may reflect a shared risk factor or a bidirectional effect for cannabis use and opioid dependence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".