4.6 Article

Mendelian randomization in the bone field

期刊

BONE
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 51-58

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2018.10.011

关键词

Bone mineral density; Fracture; Genome-wide association studies; Mendelian randomization; Osteoporosis; Single nucleotide polymorphisms

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Royal Society [204623/Z/16/Z]
  3. MRC [MC_UU_00002/7, MR/L003120/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identification of causative risk factors amenable for modification is essential for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Observational studies have identified associations between several potentially modifiable risk factors and osteoporosis. However, observational studies are susceptible to confounding, reverse causation bias, and measurement error, all of which limit their ability to provide causal estimates of the effect of exposures on outcomes, thereby reducing their ability to inform prevention and treatment strategies against bone loss and fractures. In addition, not all risk factors are suitable for an analysis in a randomized clinical trial. Mendelian randomization is a genetic epidemiological method that exploits genetic variants as unbiased proxies for modifiable exposures (e.g., biomarkers, adiposity measures, dietary factors, and behaviors) to determine the causal relationships between exposures and health outcomes. This technique has been used to provide evidence of causal associations of serum estradiol concentrations, smoking, body mass index, and type 2 diabetes with bone mineral density and the lack of associations of serum thyroid stimulating hormone, urate, C-reactive protein, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations with bone mineral density in generally healthy populations. This review will briefly explain the concept of Mendelian randomization, the advantages and potential limitations of this study design, and give examples of how Mendelian randomization has been used to investigate questions relevant to osteoporosis.

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

4.6
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