ArticleBMC research notes2024
MRSamePopTest: introducing a simple falsification test for the two-sample mendelian randomisation 'same population' assumption.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding causal m6A: a bioinformatics roadmap for psychiatric disorders.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Mind the gap: Characterizing bias due to population mismatch in two-sample Mendelian randomization.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Mendelian randomization study of GLP-1R effects on ovarian cancer subtypes mediated by metabolic factors.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition and Alzheimer's Disease Risk: A Mendelian Randomisation Study.Aging cell · 2025Article
- The role of estimation in Mendelian randomization: should Mendelian randomization investigations provide estimates?AJE advances : research in epidemiology · 2025Article
- The causal role of male pubertal timing for the development of externalizing and internalizing traits: results from Mendelian randomization studies.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Genetically proxied tumour necrosis factor inhibition and pregnancy-related maternal and foetal outcomes in the general population: a Mendelian randomization study.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- A drug target for erectile dysfunction to help improve fertility, sexual activity, and wellbeing: mendelian randomisation study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Leisure sedentary behaviour increases the risk of venous thromboembolism: a Mendelian randomisation study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Exploring the Lifetime Effect of Children on Wellbeing Using Two-Sample Mendelian Randomisation.Genes · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two-sample MR is an increasingly popular method for strengthening causal inference in epidemiological studies. For the effect estimates to be meaningful, variant-exposure and variant-outcome associations must come from comparable populations. A recent systematic review of two-sample MR studies found that, if assessed at all, MR studies evaluated this assumption by checking that the genetic association studies had similar demographics. However, it is unclear if this is sufficient because less easily accessible factors may also be important. Here we propose an easy-to-implement falsification test. Since recent theoretical developments in causal inference suggest that a causal effect estimate can generalise from one study to another if there is exchangeability of effect modifiers, we suggest testing the homogeneity of variant-phenotype associations for a phenotype which has been measured in both genetic association studies as a method of exploring the 'same-population' test. This test could be used to facilitate designing MR studies with diverse populations. We developed a simple R package to facilitate the implementation of our proposed test. We hope that this research note will result in increased attention to the same-population assumption, and the development of better sensitivity analyses.
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.