ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2021
A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficient Mendelian randomization analysis with self-adaptive determination of sample structure and multiple pleiotropic effects.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Mendelian randomization analysis using multiple biomarkers of an underlying common exposure.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Causal Relationships between Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Colon Polyps: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Association between lifetime smoking and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: A 2-sample Mendelian randomization study.JAAD international · 2024Article
- simmrd: An open-source tool to perform simulations in Mendelian randomization.Genetic epidemiology · 2024Article
- Reciprocal causation mixture model for robust Mendelian randomization analysis using genome-scale summary data.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Likelihood-based Mendelian randomization analysis with automated instrument selection and horizontal pleiotropic modeling.Science advances · 2022Article
- Welch-weighted Egger regression reduces false positives due to correlated pleiotropy in Mendelian randomization.American journal of human genetics · 2021Article
- Bayesian variable selection with a pleiotropic loss function in Mendelian randomization.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- Selection into shift work is influenced by educational attainment and body mass index: a Mendelian randomization study in the UK Biobank.International journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Investigating Causal Relationships Between Psychiatric Traits and Intracranial Aneurysms: A Bi-directional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study supports causal effects of kidney function on blood pressure.Kidney international · 2020Article
- A comparison of robust Mendelian randomization methods using summary data.Genetic epidemiology · 2020Article
- Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations: update for summer 2023.Wellcome open research · 2019Article
- Genetic instrumental variable analysis reveals multivariate dietary patterns beneficial to patients with Alzheimer's disease.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reportsArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets.
methodsWe use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
resultsSimulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies.
conclusionThe relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.
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.