ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Bayesian mendelian randomization with study heterogeneity and data partitioning for large studies.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal inference in psychiatric research: how to critically evaluate and interpret mendelian randomization studies.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Genetically supported mediators linking peripheral metabolism to cerebral ischemia: a multi-omics characterization of HMGCR, TLR4, and MMP9 in angina pectoris and stroke.Briefings in functional genomics · 2026Article
- Red Wine May Mitigate the Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage by Preventing Hypertension-A Mendelian Randomization Study Combining CHARLS.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Association of macrophage colony-stimulating factor 1 and its locus with osteoarthritis: Mendelian randomization and colocalization analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Metabolic syndrome worsens sarcopenia and reduces nutritional therapy benefits in advanced gastric cancer.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Relationship between autism and brain cortex surface area: genetic correlation and a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Association between migraine and venous thromboembolism: a Mendelian randomization and genetic correlation study.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Potential causal link between dietary intake and epilepsy: a bidirectional and multivariable Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- A review of causal discovery methods for molecular network analysis.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMendelian randomization (MR) is a useful approach to causal inference from observational studies when randomised controlled trials are not feasible. However, study heterogeneity of two association studies required in MR is often overlooked. When dealing with large studies, recently developed Bayesian MR can be computationally challenging, and sometimes even prohibitive.
methodsWe addressed study heterogeneity by proposing a random effect Bayesian MR model with multiple exposures and outcomes. For large studies, we adopted a subset posterior aggregation method to overcome the problem of computational expensiveness of Markov chain Monte Carlo. In particular, we divided data into subsets and combined estimated causal effects obtained from the subsets. The performance of our method was evaluated by a number of simulations, in which exposure data was partly missing.
resultsRandom effect Bayesian MR outperformed conventional inverse-variance weighted estimation, whether the true causal effects were zero or non-zero. Data partitioning of large studies had little impact on variations of the estimated causal effects, whereas it notably affected unbiasedness of the estimates with weak instruments and high missing rate of data. For the cases being simulated in our study, the results have indicated that the "divide (data) and combine (estimated subset causal effects)" can help improve computational efficiency, for an acceptable cost in terms of bias in the causal effect estimates, as long as the size of the subsets is reasonably large.
conclusionsWe further elaborated our Bayesian MR method to explicitly account for study heterogeneity. We also adopted a subset posterior aggregation method to ease computational burden, which is important especially when dealing with large studies. Despite the simplicity of the model we have used in the simulations, we hope the present work would effectively point to MR studies that allow modelling flexibility, especially in relation to the integration of heterogeneous studies and computational practicality.
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.