SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Education, intelligence, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A Mendelian randomization study.

Ann Clin Transl Neurol · 2020-08-18

DOI: 10.1002/acn3.51156PMID: 32810387

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveTo systematically investigate causal relationships between educational attainment, cognitive-related phenotypes, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).MethodsSummary statistics from genome-wide association studies for educational attainment, math ability, highest math class taken, cognitive performance, intelligence, and ALS were used. A two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) design was applied to explore the potential causal associations between them.ResultsGenetically predisposition to longer educational attainment and harder math class taken were associated with significantly lower statistical odds ratio of ALS. For per year increase in education completed there was a 21% lower (95% confidence interval [CI] = 27-14%) in risk for ALS. For per 1-SD increase in the highest math class taken obtained there was a 19% lower (95% CI = 9-28%) in risk for ALS. Genetically predisposition to math ability, cognitive performance, and intelligence did not decrease the risk of ALS.InterpretationThis study provides genetic support for a causal association between higher educational attainment and a lower risk of ALS. The genes related to these phenotypes are involved in almost all aspects of neuron-to-neuron communication. ALS patients are occasionally accompanied by varying degrees of cognitive impairment. People with greater cognitive reserve may be better able to offset damages of degenerative brain changes associated with dementia or other brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, or ALS.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.