Genetically Determined Reproductive Aging and Coronary Heart Disease: A Bidirectional 2-sample Mendelian Randomization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accelerated reproductive aging, in women indicated by early natural menopause, is associated with increased coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in observational studies. Conversely, an adverse CHD risk profile has been suggested to accelerate menopause. OBJECTIVES: To study the direction and evidence for causality of the relationship between reproductive aging and (non-)fatal CHD and CHD risk factors in a bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) approach, using age at natural menopause (ANM) genetic variants as a measure for genetically determined reproductive aging in women. We also studied the association of these variants with CHD risk (factors) in men. DESIGN: Two-sample MR, using both cohort data as well as summary statistics, with 4 methods: simple and weighted median-based, standard inverse-variance weighted (IVW) regression, and MR-Egger regression. PARTICIPANTS: Data from EPIC-CVD and summary statistics from UK Biobank and publicly available genome-wide association studies were pooled for the different analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CHD, CHD risk factors, and ANM. RESULTS: Across different methods of MR, no association was found between genetically determined reproductive aging and CHD risk in women (relative risk estimateIVW = 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97-1.01), or any of the CHD risk factors. Similarly, no associations were found in men. Neither did the reversed analyses show evidence for an association between CHD (risk factors) and reproductive aging. CONCLUSION: Genetically determined reproductive aging is not causally associated with CHD risk (factors) in women, nor were the genetic variants associated in men. We found no evidence for a reverse association in a combined sample of women and men.
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 | 0.079 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".