Mendelian Randomization Study of Whole Blood Viscosity and Cardiovascular Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Association between whole blood viscosity (WBV) and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been reported. However, the causal relationship between WBV and CVD remains not thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the causal relation between WBV and CVD. Methods Mendelian randomization was employed to investigate the casual relationship between WBV and CVD. Calculated WBV, derived polygenic risk score (PRS) for WBV, and medical records from 378,210 individuals participating in the UK biobank study were analyzed. Results The means of calculated WBVs were 16.9 (standard deviation: 0.8) and 55.1 (standard deviation: 17.2) for high shear rate (HSR) and low shear rate (LSR), respectively. 37,859 (10.0%) major cardiovascular event (MACE) consisted of 23,894 (6.3%) cases of myocardial infarction (MI), 9,245 (2.4%) cases of ischemic stroke, 10,377 (2.7%) cases of revascularization, and 5,703 (1.5%) cases of Coronary heart disease-related death. WBVs of individuals with PRS above median were significantly higher than the group that were below median for both low shear rate (P<0.001) and high shear rate (P<0.001). The odd ratios (95% confidence intervals) for MACE in the higher WBV group were 1.22 (1.19 - 1.25) and 1.14 (1.12 - 1.16), for HSR and LSR, respectively. The higher PRS group was insignificant with all outcomes, for both HSR and LSR. Conclusions The Mendelian randomization analysis conducted in this study does not support a causal relationship between calculated WBV and CVD.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".