ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024
Non-linear Mendelian randomization: detection of biases using negative controls with a focus on BMI, Vitamin D and LDL cholesterol.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triangulating Evidence on Serum Uric Acid and Cancer Risk: Consistent Inverse Associations With Lung Cancer.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Context-Stratified Mendelian Randomization: Exploiting Regional Exposure Variation to Explore Causal Effect Heterogeneity and Nonlinearity.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Adiposity and infection-related mortality: Mendelian randomization study of 126 000 Mexican adults.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Using Negative Control Outcomes to Detect Selection Bias in Mendelian Randomization Studies.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Widespread genetic effect heterogeneity impacts bias and power in nonlinear Mendelian randomization.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Association between physical activity, sleep quality and diabetes: a population-based analysis.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- Iron status modulates immune cell proportions to drive epigenetic age acceleration: A 2-step Mendelian randomization study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Alcohol use and risk of dementia in diverse populations: evidence from cohort, case-control and Mendelian randomisation approaches.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2026Article
- Sex-Stratified Genetic Analyses Mapping the Influences of Sedentary Behaviors and Physical Activity on Female Reproductive Health.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Stratification-based instrumental variable analysis framework for nonlinear effect analysis.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Serum Vitamin D Levels Over Time and the Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in the HUNT Study.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Article
- The rapid growth in Mendelian randomization studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Prospects of Mendelian randomization in hepatology: a comprehensive literature review with practice guidance.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2025Review
- Raising the bar for publication of Mendelian randomisation studies in Diabetologia.Diabetologia · 2025Article
- No More Free Lunch: Challenges to Mendelian Randomization Due to Sample Selection and Complex Methods.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Evidence triangulation in health research.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Review
- A flexible machine learning Mendelian randomization estimator applied to predict the safety and efficacy of sclerostin inhibition.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Investigating the non-linear association between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes: conventional and Mendelian randomization analyses from the UK Biobank.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2025Article
- Non-linear Mendelian randomization: evaluation of effect modification in the residual and doubly-ranked methods with simulated and empirical examples.European journal of epidemiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomisation (MR) is an established technique in epidemiological investigation, using the principle of random allocation of genetic variants at conception to estimate the causal linear effect of an exposure on an outcome. Extensions to this technique include non-linear approaches that allow for differential effects of the exposure on the outcome depending on the level of the exposure. A widely used non-linear method is the residual approach, which estimates the causal effect within different strata of the non-genetically predicted exposure (i.e. the "residual" exposure). These "local" causal estimates are then used to make inferences about non-linear effects. Recent work has identified that this method can lead to estimates that are seriously biased, and a new method-the doubly-ranked method-has been introduced as a possibly more robust approach. In this paper, we perform negative control outcome analyses in the MR context. These are analyses with outcomes onto which the exposure should have no predicted causal effect. Using both methods we find clearly biased estimates in certain situations. We additionally examined a situation for which there are robust randomised controlled trial estimates of effects-that of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction onto myocardial infarction, where randomised trials have provided strong evidence of the shape of the relationship. The doubly-ranked method did not identify the same shape as the trial data, and for LDL-C and other lipids they generated some highly implausible findings. Therefore, we suggest there should be extensive simulation and empirical methodological examination of performance of both methods for NLMR under different conditions before further use of these methods. In the interim, use of NLMR methods needs justification, and a number of sanity checks (such as analysis of negative and positive control outcomes, sensitivity analyses excluding removal of strata at the extremes of the distribution, examination of biological plausibility and triangulation of results) should be performed.
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.