Increasing serum iron levels and their role in the risk of infectious diseases: a Mendelian randomization approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Increased iron stores have been associated with elevated risks of different infectious diseases, suggesting that iron supplementation may increase the risk of infections. However, these associations may be biased by confounding or reverse causation. This is important, since up to 19% of the population takes iron supplementation. We used Mendelian randomization (MR) to bypass these biases and estimate the causal effect of iron on infections. METHODS: As instrumental variables, we used genetic variants associated with iron biomarkers in two genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of European ancestry participants. For outcomes, we used GWAS results from the UK Biobank, FinnGen, the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative or 23andMe, for seven infection phenotypes: 'any infections', combined, COVID-19 hospitalization, candidiasis, pneumonia, sepsis, skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) and urinary tract infection (UTI). RESULTS: Most of our analyses showed increasing iron (measured by its biomarkers) was associated with only modest changes in the odds of infectious outcomes, with all 95% odds ratios confidence intervals within the 0.88 to 1.26 range. However, for the three predominantly bacterial infections (sepsis, SSTI, UTI), at least one analysis showed a nominally elevated risk with increased iron stores (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Using MR, we did not observe an increase in risk of most infectious diseases with increases in iron stores. However for bacterial infections, higher iron stores may increase odds of infections. Hence, using genetic variation in iron pathways as a proxy for iron supplementation, iron supplements are likely safe on a population level, but we should continue the current practice of conservative iron supplementation during bacterial infections or in those at high risk of developing them.
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 | 0.057 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".