SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Causal Relationships Between Osteoarthritis and Senile Central Nerve System Dysfunction: A Bidirectional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2022-03-04

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.793023PMID: 35317304

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

BackgroundThe relationship between osteoarthritis (OA) and senile central nervous system dysfunctions (CNSDs), including Parkinson's disease (PD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and ischemic stroke (IS) has gradually attracted attention. At present, the causal relationship between OA and CNSD remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the causal effects of CNSD and OA using Mendelian randomization (MR).MethodsGenome-wide association study summary data for CNSD and OA were obtained. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected as instrumental variables (IVs), and significant (P -8) and independent (r 2 Q test, pleiotropy was tested using the MR-Egger intercept, and sensitivity analysis was performed using the leave-one-out sensitivity test.ResultsThe MR results of the causal relationship between PD and OA showed that there was a positive causal effect of OA on PD, which was estimated by IVW (OR = 1.194, 95%CI = 1.036, 1.378; P = 0.0144). Moreover, the MR analysis by IVW also showed that IS had a positive effect on OA (OR = 1.033, 95%CI = 1.002, 1.066; P = 0.0355). These results are reliable and stable, as confirmed by sensitivity tests.ConclusionThis study showed a positive causal effect of OA on PD, but there was a null effect of OA on AD and OA on IS.

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.