Micronutrients and Major Depression: A Mendelian Randomisation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various vitamins and minerals have been implicated in the aetiology of depression. Objective: To estimate the effects of micronutrient exposures on major depressive disorder (MDD) and recurrent depression (rMDD) using Mendelian randomisation (MR), a method using genetic data to estimate causal effects given certain assumptions. Methods: We undertook a comprehensive bidirectional MR study of multiple micronutrient exposures on MDD and rMDD. Summary statistics were obtained from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of MDD (cases = 116,209; controls = 314,566) and rMDD (cases = 17,451; controls = 62,482). Results: None of the micronutrients with available genetic instruments were strongly associated with MDD or rMDD using traditional MR methods. However, using methods to increase analytical power by accounting for genetically correlated variants (e.g., cIVW) highlighted five micronutrients with possible causal effects. Point estimates for rMDD were the largest magnitude, with three micronutrients suggestive of a protective effect: serum iron (ORcIVW 0.90 per SD increase; 95% CI 0.85–0.95; p = 0.0003); erythrocyte copper (ORcIVW 0.97; 95% CI 0.95–0.99; p = 0.0004); and 25(OH) vitamin D (ORcIVW 0.81; 0.66–0.99; p = 0.04). Apparent adverse effects of increased selenium on the risk of MDD (ORcIVW 1.03; 95% CI 1.02–1.05; p = 0.0003) and rMDD (ORcIVW 1.08; 95% CI 1.00–1.08; p = 0.06), and serum magnesium on rMDD (ORcIVW 1.21; 1.01–1.44; p = 0.04); were less consistent between methods and may be driven by pleiotropy. Conclusions: Our results suggest weak evidence for a protective effect of iron, copper and 25(OH)D on major depressive outcomes, with mixed evidence for selenium and magnesium. There was no evidence to support a causal effect of any other micronutrients on MDD or rMDD, although genetic instruments were lacking, with insufficient power to detect small but important effects. Future micronutrient supplementation trials should ensure ample statistical power given modest causal effect estimates and consider potential risks of supplementation, as some micronutrient effect estimates suggested potential harm in excess.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".