MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408089720 · doi:10.1002/brb3.70359

Association of Brain‐derived Neurotrophic Factor Polymorphisms With Alcohol Use Disorder: An Updated Meta‐Analysis of Genetic Association Studies

2025· review· en· W4408089720 on OpenAlexaff
Anorut Jenwitheesuk, Noel Pabalan, Pairath Tapanadechopone, Hamdi Jarjanazi, Kittipun Arunphalungsanti, Phuntila Tharabenjasin

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisAssociation (psychology)Brain-derived neurotrophic factorGenetic associationGenome-wide association studyAlcoholAlcohol use disorderPsychologyMedicineNeurotrophic factorsGeneticsOncologyNeuroscienceInternal medicineBioinformaticsPsychiatryBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeGenePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Brain‐derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has been proposed to play a role in chronic alcohol consumption. However, studies investigating the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the BDNF gene with alcohol use disorder (AUD), including alcohol dependence, have obtained inconsistent results. This meta‐analysis aims to examine the role of BDNF SNPs (rs6265, rs16917204, rs7103411, and rs11030104) in the risk of AUD. Materials and Methods A multidatabase search identified 17 articles (20 studies) for inclusion. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate associations using standard genetic models (homozygous, recessive, dominant, and codominant). Significant associations were defined as those with a p ‐value ≤ 0.05 after applying the Bonferroni correction ( p BC ). Subgroup analysis was conducted based on ethnicity (Caucasian and Asian populations). Sources of heterogeneity were investigated through outlier treatment and meta‐regression analysis. Only significant outcomes were further subjected to sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias. Results This meta‐analysis generated four significant pooled ORs, representing the core outcomes, all of which indicated reduced risks. Overall, the results indicated a significant association between the BDNF polymorphism and the risk of AUD in homozygous (OR = 0.72, 95% CIs = 0.60–0.85, p BC = 0.0038) and codominant (OR = 0.84, 95% CIs = 0.78–0.91, p BC = 0.0019) model. In subgroup analysis by ethnicity, homozygous (OR = 0.59, 95% CIs = 0.44–0.78, p BC = 0.0057) and recessive (OR = 0.61, 95% CIs = 0.46–0.81, p BC = 0.0133) models of BDNF polymorphisms were significantly associated with a reduced risk of AUD in Caucasians. However, no significant associations were found in Asians. Meta‐regression analysis did not identify any covariates that significantly contributed to the observed heterogeneity. The core significant associations were robust and showed no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion The current meta‐analysis suggests that the examined BDNF SNPs have a protective effect in the overall analysis (homozygous and codominant) and in the Caucasians subgroup (homozygous and recessive) while the Asians exhibited no effects of BDNF SNPs on AUD. BDNF polymorphisms might serve as a protective factor against the risk of AUD and could be useful markers in the clinical genetics of AUD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207