SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Causal relationship between gut microflora and dementia: a Mendelian randomization study.

Front Microbiol · 2024-01-15

DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1306048PMID: 38287957

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

BackgroundNumerous pertinent investigations have demonstrated a correlation between gut microflora (GM) and the occurrence of dementia. However, a causal connection between GM and dementia and its subtypes has not yet been clarified.ObjectiveTo explore the causal association between GM and dementia, including its subtypes, a two-sample Mendelian randomization (TSMR) analysis was used.MethodsOur data comes from the Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS). The principal approach employed for the Mendelian randomization study was the inverse-variance weighted method, supplemented by four methods: MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode. This was followed by Cochrane's Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, MR-PRESSO global test, and leave-one-out as sensitivity analysis validation.ResultsTwenty-one GMs associated with any dementia, Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, Parkinson's disease, and dementia under other disease classifications were derived from the analysis, and 21 passed sensitivity tests.ConclusionWe confirmed the causal relationship between GM and dementia and its subtypes, derived specific flora associated with increased or decreased risk of dementia, and provided new ideas for preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions for dementia mediated by gut microbiota.

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.