Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32229610›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2021

Polygenic Mendelian Randomization.

Frank Dudbridge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Genoeconomics of Impulsive Intertemporal Choice: A Critical Review.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026
    Review
  3. Polygenic scores in psychiatric research and clinical practice.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. IL18 Works Like a Two-Side Coin in Acute Pancreatitis.International journal of general medicine · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Frank DudbridgeDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8817-8908

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many exposures considered in Mendelian randomization (MR) studies are polygenic in that they are influenced by thousands of genetic variants. By using many single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as instrumental variables, more variation in the exposure is explained, increasing the precision of MR. Furthermore, methods can be designed that relax the assumptions of MR, especially concerning direct pleiotropic effects on the outcome. This article reviews the concepts and assumptions underlying the commonly used polygenic MR methods. Using a polygenic score as an instrument is equivalent to a weighted mean of individual SNP results, and the other fundamental averages, median and mode, may also be used to estimate causal effects. Outlier detection is useful for identifying pleiotropic SNPs to be excluded from analysis. Bayesian approaches are available to incorporate prior beliefs about pleiotropy. These methods each entail different assumptions, and together provide a set of sensitivity analyses to help triangulate evidence about causality.

Indexed as

CausalityGenetic VariationGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisMultifactorial InheritancePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID32229610
PMCPMC7849343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.