ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Bayesian Mendelian randomization with an interval causal null hypothesis: ternary decision rules and loss function calibration.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuropsychiatric Disorders and Constipation: Unraveling Causal Links Through Genetic Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Causal associations between 26 musculoskeletal disorders and gut microbiota: a Mendelian randomization analysis with Bayesian validation.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We enhance the Bayesian Mendelian Randomization (MR) framework of Berzuini et al. (Biostatistics 21(1):86-101, 2018) by allowing for interval null causal hypotheses, where values of the causal effect parameter that fall within a user-specified interval of "practical equivalence" (ROPE) (Kruschke, Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 1(2):270-80, 2018) are regarded as equivalent to "no effect". We motivate this move in the context of MR analysis. In this approach, the decision over the hypothesis test is taken on the basis of the Bayesian posterior odds for the causal effect parameter falling within the ROPE. We allow the causal effect parameter to have a mixture prior, with components corresponding to the null and the alternative hypothesis. Inference is performed via Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. We speed up the calculations by fitting to the data a simpler model than the intended, "true", one. We recover a set of samples from the "true" posterior distribution by weighted importance resampling of the MCMC-generated samples. From the final samples we obtain a simulation consistent estimate of the desired posterior odds, and ultimately of the Bayes factor for the interval-valued null hypothesis, [Formula: see text], vs [Formula: see text]. In those situations where the posterior odds is neither large nor small enough, we allow for an uncertain outcome of the test decision, thereby moving to a ternary decision logic. Finally, we present an approach to calibration of the proposed method via loss function. We illustrate the method with the aid of a study of the causal effect of obesity on risk of juvenile myocardial infarction based on a unique prospective dataset.
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.