ArticleNature communications2022
Robust Mendelian randomization in the presence of residual population stratification, batch effects and horizontal pleiotropy.
Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Inflammatory bowel disease increases the risk of pancreatitis: a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Causal association of serum biomarkers with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: a mendelian randomization study.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Association between genetically predicted dietary patterns and atrial fibrillation: a two sample Mendelian randomization study.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Further insights into the causal link between immune cell phenotypes and autoimmune liver diseases.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Genetic regulation of the plasma proteome and its link to cardiometabolic disease in Greenlandic Inuit.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Assessment and ascertainment in psychiatric molecular genetics: challenges and opportunities for cross-disorder research.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Review
- Enhancing the robustness of Mendelian randomization studies: lessons from a two-sample analysis of viral infections and colorectal cancer.Infectious agents and cancer · 2024Article
- Mendelian randomization analysis using multiple biomarkers of an underlying common exposure.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Metabolic Traits and Risk of Ischemic Stroke in Japanese and European Populations: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Metabolites · 2024Article
- The non-causative role of abnormal serum uric acid in intervertebral disc degeneration: A Mendelian randomization study.JOR spine · 2024Article
- Association between telomere length and idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Is This a Causal Relationship? Mendelian Randomization as a Statistical Method for Unraveling Connections.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Leveraging family data to design Mendelian randomization that is provably robust to population stratification.Genome research · 2023Article
- Strategies to investigate and mitigate collider bias in genetic and Mendelian randomisation studies of disease progression.PLoS genetics · 2023Review
- Leveraging family data to design Mendelian Randomization that is provably robust to population stratification.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- An Overview of Methods and Exemplars of the Use of Mendelian Randomisation in Nutritional Research.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Strengthening Causal Inference in Exposomics Research: Application of Genetic Data and Methods.Environmental health perspectives · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian Randomization (MR) studies are threatened by population stratification, batch effects, and horizontal pleiotropy. Although a variety of methods have been proposed to mitigate those problems, residual biases may still remain, leading to highly statistically significant false positives in large databases. Here we describe a suite of sensitivity analysis tools that enables investigators to quantify the robustness of their findings against such validity threats. Specifically, we propose the routine reporting of sensitivity statistics that reveal the minimal strength of violations necessary to explain away the MR results. We further provide intuitive displays of the robustness of the MR estimate to any degree of violation, and formal bounds on the worst-case bias caused by violations multiple times stronger than observed variables. We demonstrate how these tools can aid researchers in distinguishing robust from fragile findings by examining the effect of body mass index on diastolic blood pressure and Townsend deprivation index.
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.