ArticleBiometrics2020
On Mendelian randomization analysis of case-control study.
Article in Biometrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Cross-fitted instrument: A blueprint for one-sample Mendelian randomization.PLoS computational biology · 2022Pooled it
- Causal relationship between gut microbiota and hepatocellular carcinoma: a two-sample Mendelian randomization and case-control study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of nonrandom selection mechanisms on the causal effect estimation for two-sample Mendelian randomization methods.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- A proposed theoretical framework for retinal biomarkers.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis uses genotypes as instruments to estimate the causal effect of an exposure in the presence of unobserved confounders. The existing MR methods focus on the data generated from prospective cohort studies. We develop a procedure for studying binary outcomes under a case-control design. The proposed procedure is built upon two working models commonly used for MR analyses and adopts a quasi-empirical likelihood framework to address the ascertainment bias from case-control sampling. We derive various approaches for estimating the causal effect and hypothesis testing under the empirical likelihood framework. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the proposed methods. We find that the proposed empirical likelihood estimate is less biased than the existing estimates. Among all the approaches considered, the Lagrange multiplier (LM) test has the highest power, and the confidence intervals derived from the LM test have the most accurate coverage. We illustrate the use of our method in MR analysis of prostate cancer case-control data with vitamin D level as exposure and three single nucleotide polymorphisms as instruments.
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.