Vitamin D, Cognition, and Alzheimer’s Disease: Observational and Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Observational studies have found that vitamin D supplementation is associated with improved cognition. Further, recent Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have shown that higher vitamin D levels, 25(OH)D, may protect against Alzheimer's disease. Thus, it is possible that 25(OH)D may protect against Alzheimer's disease by improving cognition. Objective: We assessed this hypothesis, by examining the relationship between 25(OH)D levels and seven cognitive measurements. Methods: To mitigate bias from confounding, we performed two-sample MR analyses. We used instruments from three publications: Manousaki et al. (2020), Sutherland et al. (2022), and the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration/EPIC-CVD/Vitamin D Studies Collaboration (2021). Results: Our observational studies suggested a protective association between 25(OH)D levels and cognitive measures. An increase in the natural log of 25(OH)D by 1 SD was associated with a higher PACC score (BetaPACC score = 0.06, 95% CI = (0.04-0.08); p = 1.8×10-10). However, in the MR analyses, the estimated effect of 25(OH)D on cognitive measures was null. Specifically, per 1 SD increase in genetically estimated natural log of 25(OH)D, the PACC scores remained unchanged in the overall population, (BetaPACC score = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.03); p = 0.53), and amongst individuals aged over 60 (BetaPACC score = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.028 to 0.08); p = 0.35). Conclusions: In conclusion, our MR study found no clear evidence to support a protective role of increased 25(OH)D concentrations on cognitive performance in European ancestry individuals. However, our study cannot entirely dismiss the potential beneficial effect on PACC for individuals over the age of 60.
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 | 0.065 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".