Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Employing a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, we aimed to investigate the potential causal effect of Parkinson disease (PD) on osteoporosis. We conducted an in-depth MR analysis by leveraging extensive genome-wide association study datasets from the International Parkinson Disease Genomics Consortium and the Genetic Factors for Osteoporosis Consortium. We meticulously selected instrumental variables based on strict criteria, including significance thresholds, linkage disequilibrium, and the exclusion of confounding single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Our investigation utilized diverse MR methods, including inverse variance weighted, MR Egger regression, weighted median, and MR-PRESSO, to robustly evaluate the causal relationship. Our comprehensive analysis revealed noteworthy associations between PD and distinct measures of bone mineral density (BMD) (forearm BMD, femoral neck BMD, lumbar spine BMD). Specifically, the inverse variance weighted method underscored potential significant relationships between PD and forearm BMD (P = .037; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.09), femoral neck BMD (P = .034; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05), and lumbar spine BMD (P = .043; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06). The consistency of results across various methods and sensitivity analyses indicated both robustness and minimal pleiotropy concerns. Through a two-sample MR approach, this study establishes a plausible causal relationship between PD and decreased BMD. The outcomes underscore the urgency of targeted interventions to mitigate bone loss and manage osteoporosis in individuals with PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.