ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2015
Mendelian randomization studies for a continuous exposure under case-control sampling.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-omics Mendelian randomization and machine learning identify candidate therapeutic targets for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026Article
- Exercise may delay cognitive decline in Chinese older adults: a causal inference for ordered multi-categorical exposures with a Mendelian randomization approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Regression Reconstruction from a Retrospective Sample.Econometrics and statistics · 2023Article
- On Mendelian randomization analysis of case-control study.Biometrics · 2020Article
- Some statistical consideration in transcriptome-wide association studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2020Article
- Diagnostics for Pleiotropy in Mendelian Randomization Studies: Global and Individual Tests for Direct Effects.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Genetic variation in the ADIPOQ gene, adiponectin concentrations and risk of colorectal cancer: a Mendelian Randomization analysis using data from three large cohort studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2017Article
- Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this article, we assess the impact of case-control sampling on mendelian randomization analyses with a dichotomous disease outcome and a continuous exposure. The 2-stage instrumental variables (2SIV) method uses the prediction of the exposure given genotypes in the logistic regression for the outcome and provides a valid test and an approximation of the causal effect. Under case-control sampling, however, the first stage of the 2SIV procedure becomes a secondary trait association, which requires proper adjustment for the biased sampling. Through theoretical development and simulations, we compare the naïve estimator, the inverse probability weighted estimator, and the maximum likelihood estimator for the first-stage association and, more importantly, the resulting 2SIV estimates of the causal effect. We also include in our comparison the causal odds ratio estimate derived from structural mean models by double-logistic regression. Our results suggest that the naïve estimator is substantially biased under the alternative, yet it remains unbiased under the null hypothesis of no causal effect; the maximum likelihood estimator yields smaller variance and mean squared error than other estimators; and the structural mean models estimator delivers the smallest bias, though generally incurring a larger variance and sometimes having issues in algorithm stability and convergence.
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.