SynthesisPLoS computational biology2022
Cross-fitted instrument: A blueprint for one-sample Mendelian randomization.
Synthesis in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Canon enables causal inference of downstream genes in single-cell CRISPR studies via instrumental variable analysis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Associations between socioeconomic factors and mental symptoms highlight whole-body correlates and pathways.iScience · 2026Article
- Best-subset instrumental variable selection method using mixed integer optimization with applications to health-related quality of life and education-wage analyses.Research square · 2024Article
- MR-SPLIT: A novel method to address selection and weak instrument bias in one-sample Mendelian randomization studies.PLoS genetics · 2024Article
- Genetic predictors of traits in elderly subjects: risk of survival bias and reverse causation.European heart journal · 2024Article
- An empirical investigation into the impact of winner's curse on estimates from Mendelian randomization.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Bias from weak instruments may undermine the ability to estimate causal effects in instrumental variable regression (IVR). We present here a new approach to handling weak instrument bias through the application of a new type of instrumental variable coined 'Cross-Fitted Instrument' (CFI). CFI splits the data at random and estimates the impact of the instrument on the exposure in each partition. These estimates are then used to perform an IVR on each partition. We adapt CFI to the Mendelian randomization (MR) setting and term this adaptation 'Cross-Fitting for Mendelian Randomization' (CFMR). We show that, even when using weak instruments, CFMR is, at worst, biased towards the null, which makes it a conservative one-sample MR approach. In particular, CFMR remains conservative even when the two samples used to perform the MR analysis completely overlap, whereas current state-of-the-art approaches (e.g., MR RAPS) display substantial bias in this setting. Another major advantage of CFMR lies in its use of all of the available data to select genetic instruments, which maximizes statistical power, as opposed to traditional two-sample MR where only part of the data is used to select the instrument. Consequently, CFMR is able to enhance statistical power in consortia-led meta-analyses by enabling a conservative one-sample MR to be performed in each cohort prior to a meta-analysis of the results across all the cohorts. In addition, CFMR enables a cross-ethnic MR analysis by accounting for ethnic heterogeneity, which is particularly important in meta-analyses where the participating cohorts may have different ethnicities. To our knowledge, none of the current MR approaches can account for such heterogeneity. Finally, CFMR enables the application of MR to exposures that are either rare or difficult to measure, which would normally preclude their analysis in the regular two-sample MR setting.
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.