SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Assessment of causality association between serum adiponectin levels and the risk of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease: a Mendelian randomization study.

Front Neurol · 2025-04-30

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1395798PMID: 40371086

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

BackgroundUntil recently, the association between circulating adiponectin (ADPN) levels and the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) remained unclear.MethodsWe utilized public data from the IEU GWAS database to conduct a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis and multiple sensitivity analyses. The MR analysis was performed using the aggregated data, with the genetic risk score (GRS) serving as an instrumental variable.ResultsThe MR analyses revealed no significant causal association between genetically determined ADPN levels and the risk of AD (ORIVW = 0.852, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.586-1.117, p = 0.235) or PD (ORIVW = 0.830, 95% CI: 0.780-1.156, p = 0.606). Conversely, neither AD nor PD demonstrated any causal association with ADPN levels. The GRS approach yielded similar results (p > 0.05). However, it exhibited a negative correlation with interleukin 1β (IL1β, βIVW = -0.31; 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.07, p = 0.011). The Cochrane's Q test and MR-PRESSO analysis revealed no evidence of pleiotropy.ConclusionOur findings provide no evidence to substantiate a causal relationship between ADPN levels and the risk of AD and PD or vice versa. However, elevated levels of ADPN may correlate with lower levels of IL1β.

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.