ReviewPLoS genetics2023
Strategies to investigate and mitigate collider bias in genetic and Mendelian randomisation studies of disease progression.
Review in PLoS genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D and human health: evidence from Mendelian randomization studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Polygenic risk scores in human genetics for study design discovery and translation.Human genetics · 2026Review
- Investigating the repurposing potential of immune checkpoint inhibition for cancer treatment using Mendelian randomisation.Research square · 2026Article
- Bayesian Mendelian randomization methods for index trait bias correction in subsequent trait genome-wide association studies.HGG advances · 2026Article
- Body Mass Index, Clinical Outcomes, and Mortality in Heart Failure: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Challenges and future directions for Mendelian randomization.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Can Psychiatric Genetics Advance Without Incorporating a Life Course Perspective?Biological psychiatry · 2026Review
- Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and risk of COPD: a Mendelian randomization study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Causal Relationships Between Major Depressive Disorder and Coronary Artery Disease Across Diverse Populations: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomisation Study.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
- Genetically Elevated Neutrophil Count Is Associated with Poor Outcome Following Ischemic Stroke: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- An application of the MR-Horse method to reduce selection bias in genome-wide association studies of disease progression.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Integrating Single-Cell Transcriptome-Wide Mendelian Randomization and Differentially Expressed Gene Analyses to Prioritize Dynamic Immune-Related Drug Targets for Cancers.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Exploring the genetic basis of essential hypertension: association with AGT gene variants in an Iranian population.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Investigating the association between anthropometry and colorectal cancer survival: a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis.International journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Immunological drivers and potential novel drug targets for major psychiatric, neurodevelopmental, and neurodegenerative conditions.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- Prospects of Mendelian randomization in hepatology: a comprehensive literature review with practice guidance.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2025Review
- The Causal Pivot: A structural approach to genetic heterogeneity and variant discovery in complex diseases.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Impact of genetic risk and lifestyles on cardiovascular disease-free and total life expectancy: a cohort study.Genome medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic studies of disease progression can be used to identify factors that may influence survival or prognosis, which may differ from factors that influence on disease susceptibility. Studies of disease progression feed directly into therapeutics for disease, whereas studies of incidence inform prevention strategies. However, studies of disease progression are known to be affected by collider (also known as "index event") bias since the disease progression phenotype can only be observed for individuals who have the disease. This applies equally to observational and genetic studies, including genome-wide association studies and Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses. In this paper, our aim is to review several statistical methods that can be used to detect and adjust for index event bias in studies of disease progression, and how they apply to genetic and MR studies using both individual- and summary-level data. Methods to detect the presence of index event bias include the use of negative controls, a comparison of associations between risk factors for incidence in individuals with and without the disease, and an inspection of Miami plots. Methods to adjust for the bias include inverse probability weighting (with individual-level data), or Slope-Hunter and Dudbridge et al.'s index event bias adjustment (when only summary-level data are available). We also outline two approaches for sensitivity analysis. We then illustrate how three methods to minimise bias can be used in practice with two applied examples. Our first example investigates the effects of blood lipid traits on mortality from coronary heart disease, while our second example investigates genetic associations with breast cancer mortality.
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.