ArticleGenetic epidemiology2024
Unveiling challenges in Mendelian randomization for gene-environment interaction.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Insights into the relationship between menopausal timing and risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization analyses.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Heart rate phase is an indicator of chronotype-relevant circadian shifts associated with human disease: an All of Us Research Program analysis.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Integrative Mendelian randomization for detecting exposure-by-group interactions using group-specific and combined summary statistics.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Prospective study on the association between 36 human blood cell traits and pan-cancer outcomes: a mendelian randomization analysis.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Quantitative Proteomics: Recent Advances in Glomerular Disease and Nephrotic Syndrome.Glomerular diseasesReview
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.
Funding
Abstract
Gene-environment (GxE) interactions play a crucial role in understanding the complex etiology of various traits, but assessing them using observational data can be challenging due to unmeasured confounders for lifestyle and environmental risk factors. Mendelian randomization (MR) has emerged as a valuable method for assessing causal relationships based on observational data. This approach utilizes genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) with the aim of providing a valid statistical test and estimation of causal effects in the presence of unmeasured confounders. MR has gained substantial popularity in recent years largely due to the success of genome-wide association studies. Many methods have been developed for MR; however, limited work has been done on evaluating GxE interaction. In this paper, we focus on two primary IV approaches: the two-stage predictor substitution and the two-stage residual inclusion, and extend them to accommodate GxE interaction under both the linear and logistic regression models for continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. Comprehensive simulation study and analytical derivations reveal that resolving the linear regression model is relatively straightforward. In contrast, the logistic regression model presents a considerably more intricate challenge, which demands additional effort.
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.