ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Causal relationship between resting-state networks and depression: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between brain connectivity and renal pathophysiology: a multi-trait Mendelian randomization analysis.Brain structure & function · 2025Article
- Glaucoma and brain functional networks: a bidirectional Mendelian randomisation study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Temporomandibular disorders and mental health: shared etiologies and treatment approaches.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Review
- Causal associations between iron levels in subcortical brain regions and psychiatric disorders: a Mendelian randomization study.Translational psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCerebral resting-state networks were suggested to be strongly associated with depressive disorders. However, the causal relationship between cerebral networks and depressive disorders remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of resting-state networks on depressive disorders using a bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) design.
methodsUpdated summary-level genome-wide association study (GWAS) data correlated with resting-state networks were obtained from a meta-analysis of European-descent GWAS from the Complex Trait Genetics Lab. Depression-related GWAS data were obtained from the FinnGen study involving participants with European ancestry. Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging and multiband diffusion imaging of the brain were performed to measure functional and structural connectivity in seven well-known networks. Inverse-variance weighting was used as the primary estimate, whereas the MR-Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outliers (PRESSO), MR-Egger, and weighted median were used to detect heterogeneity, sensitivity, and pleiotropy.
resultsIn total, 20,928 functional and 20,573 structural connectivity data as well as depression-related GWAS data from 48,847 patients and 225,483 controls were analyzed. Evidence for a causal effect of the structural limbic network on depressive disorders was found in the inverse variance-weighted limbic network (odds ratio, [Formula: see text]; 95% confidence interval, [Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]), whereas the causal effect of depressive disorders on SC LN was not found(OR=1.0025; CI,1.0005-1.0046; P=0.012). No significant associations between functional connectivity of the resting-state networks and depressive disorders were found in this MR study.
conclusionsThese results suggest that genetically determined structural connectivity of the limbic network has a causal effect on depressive disorders and may play a critical role in its neuropathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.