4.7 Article

A bidirectional Mendelian randomized study of classical blood lipids and venous thrombosis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-31067-z

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study found no causal relationship between the three classical lipids (LDL, HDL, and TGs) and venous thromboembolism (DVT and PE).
There is still some controversy about the relationship between lipids and venous thrombosis (VTE). A bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) study was conducted to clarify the causal relationship between three classical lipids (low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglycerides (TGs)) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) (deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)). Three classical lipids and VTE were analysed by bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR). We used the random effect inverse variance weighted (IVW) model as the main analysis model and the weighted median method, simple mode method, weighted mode method and MR-Egger methods as supplementary methods. The leave-one-out test was used to determine the influence of outliers. The heterogeneity was calculated by using Cochran Q statistics in the MR-Egger and IVW methods. The intercept term in the MR-Egger regression was used to indicate whether horizontal pleiotropy affected the results of the MR analysis. In addition, MR-PRESSO identified outlier single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and obtained a stable result by removing outlier SNPs and then performing MR analysis. When we used three classical lipids (LDL, HDL and TGs) as exposure variables, no causal relationship between them and VTE (DVT and PE) was found. In addition, we did not find significant causal effects of VTE on the three classical lipids in reverse MR analysis. There is no significant causal relationship between three classical lipids (LDL, HDL and TGs) and VTE (DVT and PE) from a genetic point of view.

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