Using a Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study Based on Genome-Wide Association Studies to Assess and Demonstrate the Causal Effects of Allergic Rhinitis on Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases and Lung Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Observational studies have reported that allergic rhinitis (AR) was associated with chronic lower respiratory diseases (CLRDs) and lung function; however, their causal effects remain elusive. Therefore, to investigate the causal effects of AR on CLRDs and lung function, we conducted the two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study. METHODS: The data for AR, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio were obtained from genome-wide association studies, which were large sample studies on people of European ancestry. In this study, single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with AR were considered instrumental variables. We employed the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method with random effects to evaluate causal effects, and the weighted median and MR-Egger methods were used for sensitivity analyses. Significant causal associations were attempted for replication and meta-analysis. RESULTS: In the discovery stage, we found that AR exhibited a significant causal effect on asthma (IVW, odds ratio [OR] = 16.91, 95% CI, 8.03-35.65, p < 0.001) and a suggestive effect on FEV1/FVC ratio (IVW, OR = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.68-0.99, p = 0.039). No causal effect of AR was observed on COPD, bronchiectasis, and IPF. In the replication stage, the causal effect of AR on asthma was replicated (IVW, OR = 11.57, 95% CI, 4.90-27.37, p < 0.001). The meta-analysis demonstrated that the combined OR of AR on asthma was 14.37 (IVW, 95% CI, 8.18-25.24, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated and measured the causal effects of AR on asthma (OR = 14.37) and FEV1/FVC ratio (OR = 0.82), while there was no evidence to support a causal effect of AR on COPD, bronchiectasis, and IPF. These results suggest that AR tends to have a causal effect on lower airway disease of similar inflammatory types and can provide high-quality causal evidence for clinical practice as well as the pathogenesis and prevention of AR and asthma.
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 | 0.071 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".