Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 15;12:e17073. doi: 10.7717/peerj.17073

Table 1. Summary results of the MR analysis for RHR on dementia.

Methods RHR- IGAP RHR–MA-U RHR–FA-U RHR-FH-AD
Number of SNPs β (SE) P Number of SNPs β (SE) P Number of SNPs β (SE) P Number of SNPs β (SE) P
GSMR 35 0.12 (0.12) 0.30 38 −0.18 (0.12) 0.13 37 −0.14 (0.17) 0.39 36 −0.03 (0.08) 0.72
IVW (Fixed effects) 35 0.12 (0.11) 0.30 38 −0.18 (0.12) 0.13 37 −0.14 (0.17) 0.39 36 −0.03 (0.07) 0.71
IVW (Random effects) 35 0.12 (0.09) 0.18 38 −0.18 (0.10) 0.08 37 −0.14 (0.14) 0.33 36 −0.03 (0.06) 0.66
MR-Egger 35 0.19 (0.16) 0.25 38 −0.45 (0.33) 0.18 37 −0.28 (0.24) 0.25 36 −0.16 (0.21) 0.42

Notes:

The same SNPs were used in each outcome dataset to compare the results between the GSMR analysis and the other MR analysis. In all analyses, there was no horizontal pleiotropy (All MR-Egger Ps > 0.05). The IVW method was additionally used to determine the causal effect. No heterogeneity was observed as Cochran’s Q statistics P value > 0.10 in all analyses.

MR, Mendelian randomization; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; RHR, resting heart rate; GSMR, generalized summary Mendelian randomization; IGAP, International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project; IVW, inverse variance weighted; FH-AD, a GWAS dataset from a combined meta-analysis; MA, maternal family history; FA, paternal family history; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.