Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36037248›Full record

SynthesisPLoS computational biology2022

Cross-fitted instrument: A blueprint for one-sample Mendelian randomization.

William R P Denault, Jon Bohlin, Christian M Page, Stephen Burgess, Astanand Jugessur

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

William R P DenaultDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9690-3890
Jon BohlinCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-0992-1311
Christian M PageCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1897-3666
Stephen BurgessMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5365-8760
Astanand JugessurCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NOUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health BRC-1215-20014Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/7Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 204623/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisBiasCausalityHumans

Identifiers

PMID36037248
PMCPMC9462731
OpenAlexW4293470174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.