Dose-dependent Association of Alcohol Consumption With Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: Mendelian Randomization Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Effects of modest alcohol consumption remain controversial. Mendelian randomization (MR) can help to mitigate biases due to confounding and reverse causation in observational studies, and evaluate the potential causal role of alcohol consumption. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to evaluate dose-dependent effect of alcohol consumption on obesity and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Assessing 408 540 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank, we first tested the association between self-reported alcohol intake frequency and 10 anthropometric measurements, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. We then conducted MR analyses both in the overall population and in subpopulations stratified by alcohol intake frequency. RESULTS: Among individuals having more than 14 drinks per week, a 1-drink-per-week increase in genetically predicted alcohol intake frequency was associated with a 0.36-kg increase in fat mass (SD = 0.03 kg), a 1.08-fold increased odds of obesity (95% CI, 1.06-1.10), and a 1.10-fold increased odds of type 2 diabetes (95% CI, 1.06-1.13). These associations were stronger in women than in men. Furthermore, no evidence was found supporting the association between genetically increased alcohol intake frequency and improved health outcomes among individuals having 7 or fewer drinks per week, as MR estimates largely overlapped with the null. These results withstood multiple sensitivity analyses assessing the validity of MR assumptions. CONCLUSION: As opposed to observational associations, MR results suggest there may not be protective effects of modest alcohol consumption on obesity traits and type 2 diabetes. Heavy alcohol consumption could lead to increased measures of obesity as well as increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
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 | 0.119 | 0.206 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".