SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Causal effects of mental disorders on stroke subtypes: A proteome-wide Mendelian randomization and mediation analysis.

Medicine (Baltimore) · 2026-06-01

DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000049108PMID: 42260810

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

Observational studies have demonstrated associations between mental disorders and stroke, yet causal relationships and potential molecular mechanisms remain elusive. To clarify this, we performed a bidirectional 2-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using genome-wide association studies summary statistics to assess the causal effects of 7 major mental disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], Alzheimer disease, and Parkinson disease) on stroke subtypes. Analyses were divided into discovery and validation cohorts of European ancestry, followed by MRlap and meta-analysis to obtain pooled estimates. To explore potential circulating protein mediators, 4907 plasma cis-protein quantitative trait loci (cis-pQTLs) from deCODE Genetics were screened, followed by Bayesian co-localization and 2-step MR mediation analyses. Our findings revealed that ADHD was consistently associated with an increased risk of any stroke (AS), any ischemic stroke (AIS), and particularly large-artery atherosclerotic stroke (LAS; odds ratio = 1.455; 95% confidence interval: 1.077-1.967). Mediators screening showed genetic liability to ADHD was linked to elevated circulating matrix metallopeptidase-12 (MMP12; β = 0.141, P = .005), which conferred protection against AIS and LAS, potentially lowering LAS risk by 7.5%. In conclusion, this MR study suggests ADHD is a causal risk factor for ischemic stroke, especially LAS. Paradoxically, circulating MMP12 acts as a protective mediator, modestly reducing this risk by 7.5%. These findings require validation in future experimental and cohort studies.

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.