Mendelian randomization study of loneliness, subjective well-being, and frailty index

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2026.01.009

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To employ a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) design to examine whether the associations between loneliness, subjective well-being, and the frailty index reflect causal relationships. Methods ·Summary data from published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were utilized, and an MR approach was employed to analyze the causal relationships between loneliness, subjective well-being, and the frailty index (as a surrogate measure of frailty). Data on loneliness were derived from a study comprising 445 024 individuals of European ancestry, including 80 134 cases and 364 890 controls. Data for subjective well-being were obtained from 298 420 participants of European ancestry. Summary statistics for frailty were sourced from a meta-analysis of GWAS conducted within the UK Biobank and the Swedish TwinGene cohort, which included 175 226 individuals of European ancestry. The inverse variance weighted (IVW) method served as the primary MR analytical approach to derive causal estimates, with the weighted median estimator (WME) used as a supplementary approach. Cochran′s Q test was applied to assess heterogeneity in the IVW estimates. The presence of horizontal pleiotropy was evaluated using the MR-Egger intercept test. When significant heterogeneity was detected, the MR-PRESSO global test was utilized to identify and subsequently remove outlier variants. MR analyses were then repeated. A Leave-One-Out sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the overall estimates were unduly influenced by any single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). To ensure data consistency and analytical reliability during effect allele harmonization between exposure and outcome datasets, palindromic SNPs (for which the effect allele direction could not be definitively determined) were excluded. Results ·The IVW method revealed a significant positive association between loneliness and the frailty index, with an OR of 3.87 (95% CI 2.33‒6.46, P<0.001). This result was further confirmed by the WME, yielding an OR of 2.81 (95% CI 1.49‒5.29, P<0.001). Subjective well-being showed a significant negative association with the frailty index (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.69‒0.94, P=0.005). The WME demonstrated a consistent direction of effect, though with borderline significance (OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.74‒1.01, P=0.065). The analysis revealed no significant heterogeneity (Cochran′s Q test, P=0.054 and P=0.074) or horizontal pleiotropy (MR-Egger intercept test, P=0.470 and P=0.260). Conclusion ·This study, supported by the MR methodology, indicates that loneliness is associated with an increased risk of frailty, while subjective well-being serves as a protective factor against frailty.

Key words: Mendelian randomization (MR), loneliness, subjective well-being, frailty index, causal inference

CLC Number:

R212.7

Aikeremu Aierken, Chen Xingjuan, Niu Yueyue. Mendelian randomization study of loneliness, subjective well-being, and frailty index[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2026, 46(1): 75-81.

Figures/Tables 8

TrendMD

References 40

[1]	Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, et al. Frailty in elderly people[J]. Lancet, 2013, 381(9868): 752-762.
[2]	Cacioppo J T, Cacioppo S. The growing problem of loneliness[J]. Lancet, 2018, 391(10119): 426.
[3]	Patel R S, Wardle K, Parikh R J. Loneliness: the present and the future[J]. Age Ageing, 2019, 48(4): 476-477.
[4]	Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L. Advances in subjective well-being research[J]. Nat Hum Behav, 2018, 2(4): 253-260.
[5]	Sekula P, del Greco M F, Pattaro C, et al. Mendelian randomization as an approach to assess causality using observational data [J]. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2016, 27(11): 3253-3265.
[6]	Smith G D, Lawlor D A, Harbord R, et al. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology[J]. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(12): e352.
[7]	Gupta V, Walia G K, Sachdeva M P. ‘Mendelian randomization’: an approach for exploring causal relations in epidemiology[J]. Public Health, 2017, 145: 113-119.
[8]	Day F R, Ong K K, Perry J R B. Elucidating the genetic basis of social interaction and isolation[J]. Nat Commun, 2018, 9: 2457.
[9]	Okbay A, Baselmans B M, De Neve J E, et al. Genetic variants associated with subjective well-being, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism identified through genome-wide analyses [J]. Nat Genet, 2016, 48(6): 624-633.
[10]	Kaskirbayeva D, West R, Jaafari H, et al. Progression of frailty as measured by a cumulative deficit index: a systematic review[J]. Ageing Res Rev, 2023, 84: 101789.
[11]	Atkins J L, JylhäVä J, Pedersen N L, et al. A genome-wide association study of the frailty index highlights brain pathways in ageing[J]. Aging Cell, 2021, 20(9): e13459.
[12]	Burgess S, Thompson S G, Collaboration C C G. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2011, 40(3): 755-764.
[13]	Hartwig F P, Davey Smith G, Bowden J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2017, 46(6): 1985-1998.
[14]	Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock P C, et al. Consistent estimation in mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted Median estimator[J]. Genet Epidemiol, 2016, 40(4): 304-314.
[15]	Hemani G, Zheng J, Elsworth B, et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome[J]. eLife, 2018, 7: e34408.
[16]	Burgess S, Thompson S G. Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method[J]. Eur J Epidemiol, 2017, 32(5): 377-389.
[17]	Verbanck M, Chen C Y, Neale B, et al. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases[J]. Nat Genet, 2018, 50(5): 693-698.
[18]	Altintas H K, Coban S A, Cantekin I. Relationship between frailty and loneliness among community-dwelling Turkish older people[J]. Psychogeriatrics, 2023, 23(2): 243-251.
[19]	Gale C R, Westbury L, Cooper C. Social isolation and loneliness as risk factors for the progression of frailty: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing[J]. Age Ageing, 2018, 47(3): 392-397.
[20]	Sha S, Pan Y, Xu Y B, et al. Associations between loneliness and frailty among older adults: evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2022, 22(1): 537.
[21]	Kojima G, Taniguchi Y, Aoyama R, et al. Associations between loneliness and physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ageing Res Rev, 2022, 81: 101705.
[22]	Tay L, Tan K, Diener E, et al. Social relations, health behaviors, and health outcomes: a survey and synthesis[J]. Applied Psych Health Well, 2013, 5(1): 28-78.
[23]	Kandola A, Solmi F, Ajnakina O, et al. The role of loneliness in the association between chronic physical illness and depressive symptoms among older adults: a prospective cohort study[J]. J Affect Disord, 2023, 334: 220-226.
[24]	Cole S W. Social regulation of leukocyte homeostasis: the role of glucocorticoid sensitivity[J]. Brain Behav Immun, 2008, 22(7): 1049-1055.
[25]	Cole S W, Hawkley L C, Arevalo J M, et al. Social regulation of gene expression in human leukocytes[J]. Genome Biol, 2007, 8(9): R189.
[26]	Luo Y, Hawkley L C, Waite L J, et al. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: a national longitudinal study[J]. Soc Sci Med, 2012, 74(6): 907-914.
[27]	Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Honkanen R, Viinamäki H, et al. Life satisfaction and suicide: a 20-year follow-up study[J]. Am J Psychiatry, 2001, 158(3): 433-439.
[28]	Qazi S L, Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Rikkonen T, et al. Physical capacity, subjective health, and life satisfaction in older women: a 10-year follow-up study[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2021, 21(1): 658.
[29]	Stenlund S, Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Sillanmäki L, et al. Changed health behavior improves subjective well-being and vice versa in a follow-up of 9 years[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2022, 20(1): 66.
[30]	Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Kaprio J, Honkanen R J, et al. The stability of life satisfaction in a 15-year follow-up of adult Finns healthy at baseline[J]. BMC Psychiatry, 2005, 5(1): 4.
[31]	Song C F, Tay P K C, Gwee X, et al. Happy people live longer because they are healthy people[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2023, 23(1): 440.
[32]	Steptoe A, Deaton A, Stone A A. Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing[J]. Lancet, 2015, 385(9968): 640-648.
[33]	Khazaee-Pool M, Sadeghi R, Majlessi F, et al. Effects of physical exercise programme on happiness among older people[J]. Psychiatric Ment Health Nurs, 2015, 22(1): 47-57.
[34]	Li C, Ning G J, Xia Y X. Does exercise participation promote happiness: mediations and heterogeneities[J]. Front Public Health, 2023, 11: 1033157.
[35]	Wang D, Gao H X, Xu X, et al. Analysis of influence of physical health factors on subjective wellbeing of middle-aged and elderly women in China[J]. BMC Public Health, 2022, 22(1): 1127.
[36]	Gheorghe A C, BăLăȘEscu E, Hulea I, et al. Frailty and loneliness in older adults: a narrative review[J]. Geriatrics, 2024, 9(5): 119.
[37]	Zheng G H, Qiu P T, Xia R, et al. Effect of aerobic exercise on inflammatory markers in healthy middle-aged and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Front Aging Neurosci, 2019, 11: 98.
[38]	HernáNdez-Lepe M A, Ortiz-Ortiz M, HernáNdez-Ontiveros D A, et al. Inflammatory profile of older adults in response to physical activity and diet supplementation: a systematic review[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2023, 20(5): 4111.
[39]	Koelman L, Egea Rodrigues C, Aleksandrova K. Effects of dietary patterns on biomarkers of inflammation and immune responses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Adv Nutr, 2022, 13(1): 101-115.
[40]	Boucham M, Salhi A, El Hajji N, et al. Factors associated with frailty in older people: an umbrella review[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2024, 24(1): 737.

SNP	EA	NEA	EAF	β	SE	P value	F statistics
rs6430286	G	A	0.58	0.005	0.001	1.44×10^-8	32.14
rs74338595	T	C	0.71	0.005	0.001	4.82×10^-9	34.26
rs4465966	A	G	0.43	0.005	0.001	1.44×10^-8	32.13
rs171697	C	G	0.67	-0.005	0.001	6.81×10^-9	33.59
rs2069117	A	C	0.37	-0.005	0.001	8.97×10^-10	37.54
rs10456089	G	A	0.92	0.009	0.002	2.55×10^-9	35.50
rs7770860	T	C	0.63	-0.005	0.001	1.45×10^-8	32.12
rs773020	G	A	0.10	-0.009	0.001	5.32×10^-9	34.07
rs13291079	T	C	0.58	0.005	0.001	9.21×10^-11	41.99
rs62085660	C	G	0.26	0.005	0.001	4.86×10^-9	34.24
rs613872	G	T	0.17	-0.008	0.001	5.77×10^-14	56.45

SNP	EA	NEA	EAF	β	SE	P value	F statistics
rs6430286	G	A	0.58	0.005	0.001	1.44×10^-8	32.14
rs74338595	T	C	0.71	0.005	0.001	4.82×10^-9	34.26
rs4465966	A	G	0.43	0.005	0.001	1.44×10^-8	32.13
rs171697	C	G	0.67	-0.005	0.001	6.81×10^-9	33.59
rs2069117	A	C	0.37	-0.005	0.001	8.97×10^-10	37.54
rs10456089	G	A	0.92	0.009	0.002	2.55×10^-9	35.50
rs7770860	T	C	0.63	-0.005	0.001	1.45×10^-8	32.12
rs773020	G	A	0.10	-0.009	0.001	5.32×10^-9	34.07
rs13291079	T	C	0.58	0.005	0.001	9.21×10^-11	41.99
rs62085660	C	G	0.26	0.005	0.001	4.86×10^-9	34.24
rs613872	G	T	0.17	-0.008	0.001	5.77×10^-14	56.45

SNP	EA	NEA	EAF	β	SE	P value	F statistics
rs10484399	A	G	0.916 04	-0.026	0.005	1.99×10^-7	27.04
rs10769190	T	C	0.197 80	0.018	0.004	6.80×10^-6	20.25
rs11073619	T	C	0.104 50	0.025	0.005	5.73×10^-7	25.00
rs11610143	C	G	0.802 20	0.019	0.004	2.03×10^-6	22.56
rs12143280	T	C	0.944 03	0.038	0.008	2.03×10^-6	22.56
rs12298541	A	C	0.356 30	0.016	0.003	9.64×10^-8	28.44
rs13235506	T	G	0.955 22	-0.034	0.007	1.19×10^-6	23.59
rs17005492	T	C	0.785 40	0.018	0.004	6.80×10^-6	20.25
rs2017279	A	G	0.679 10	0.016	0.003	9.64×10^-8	28.44
rs258668	T	C	0.595 10	-0.017	0.003	1.46×10^-8	32.11
rs4589952	T	C	0.154 90	-0.021	0.004	1.52×10^-7	27.56
rs6587766	T	C	0.041 04	0.047	0.009	1.77×10^-7	27.27
rs707533	A	G	0.666 00	0.019	0.003	2.40×10^-10	40.11
rs7149000	A	G	0.459 00	-0.014	0.003	3.06×10^-6	21.78
rs7239568	A	C	0.688 40	-0.016	0.003	9.64×10^-8	28.44
rs7969982	T	C	0.925 37	-0.031	0.006	2.38×10^-7	26.69

SNP	EA	NEA	EAF	β	SE	P value	F statistics
rs10484399	A	G	0.916 04	-0.026	0.005	1.99×10^-7	27.04
rs10769190	T	C	0.197 80	0.018	0.004	6.80×10^-6	20.25
rs11073619	T	C	0.104 50	0.025	0.005	5.73×10^-7	25.00
rs11610143	C	G	0.802 20	0.019	0.004	2.03×10^-6	22.56
rs12143280	T	C	0.944 03	0.038	0.008	2.03×10^-6	22.56
rs12298541	A	C	0.356 30	0.016	0.003	9.64×10^-8	28.44
rs13235506	T	G	0.955 22	-0.034	0.007	1.19×10^-6	23.59
rs17005492	T	C	0.785 40	0.018	0.004	6.80×10^-6	20.25
rs2017279	A	G	0.679 10	0.016	0.003	9.64×10^-8	28.44
rs258668	T	C	0.595 10	-0.017	0.003	1.46×10^-8	32.11
rs4589952	T	C	0.154 90	-0.021	0.004	1.52×10^-7	27.56
rs6587766	T	C	0.041 04	0.047	0.009	1.77×10^-7	27.27
rs707533	A	G	0.666 00	0.019	0.003	2.40×10^-10	40.11
rs7149000	A	G	0.459 00	-0.014	0.003	3.06×10^-6	21.78
rs7239568	A	C	0.688 40	-0.016	0.003	9.64×10^-8	28.44
rs7969982	T	C	0.925 37	-0.031	0.006	2.38×10^-7	26.69