4.7 Article

Comparison of father-offspring and mother-offspring associations of cardiovascular risk factors: family linkage within the population-based HUNT Study, Norway

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 760-771

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyt250

关键词

Cardiovascular disease; epidemiology; intergenerational relations; risk factors

资金

  1. Liaison Committee
  2. UK Medical Research Council
  3. University of Bristol
  4. MRC [MC_UU_12013/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12013/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cardiovascular risk factors are transmitted from parents to offspring; however, the relative contributions of fathers and mothers remain unclear. If maternal exposures during pregnancy influence offspring through the intrauterine environment, associations between mothers and offspring are expected to be stronger than between fathers and offspring. In this family linkage study we compared father-offspring and mother-offspring associations of several cardiovascular risk factors. Methods The study population consisted of 36 528 father-mother-offspring trios who participated at one or more surveys of the HUNT Study, Norway in 1984-86, 1995-97 and 2006-08. Parent-offspring associations were assessed using unstandardized and standardized residuals from linear regression analysis, and possible non-paternity was accounted for in sensitivity analyses. Results Age- and sex-adjusted parent-offspring associations for anthropometric factors, blood pressure, blood lipids, blood glucose and resting heart rate were largely similar between fathers and mothers. Use of standardized values and analyses adjusted for non-paternity further emphasized this similarity. Conclusions This study found largely similar father-offspring and mother-offspring associations across all cardiovascular risk factors under study, arguing against strong maternal effects transmitted through intrauterine mechanisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据