Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38822217›Full record

ArticleBehavior genetics2024

A Note on Modelling Bidirectional Feedback Loops in Mendelian Randomization Studies.

Liang-Dar Hwang, David M Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Liang-Dar HwangInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
David M EvansInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. d.evans1@uq.edu.au.

Funding

Australian Research Council DE240100014National Health and Medical Research Council 2017942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structural equation models (SEMs) involving feedback loops may offer advantages over standard instrumental variables estimators in terms of modelling causal effects in the presence of bidirectional relationships. In the following note, we show that in the case of a single "exposure" and "outcome" variable, modelling relationships using a SEM with a simple bidirectional linear feedback loop offers no advantage over traditional instrumental variables estimators in terms of consistency (i.e. both approaches yield consistent estimates of the causal effect, provided that causal estimates are obtained in both directions). In the case of finite samples, traditional IV estimators and SEM exhibited similar power across many of the conditions we examined, although which method performed best depended on the residual correlation between variables and the strength of the instruments. In particular, the power of SEM was insensitive to the residual correlation between variables, whereas the power of the Wald estimator/2SLS improved (deteriorated) relative to SEM as the magnitude of the residual correlation increased (decreased) assuming a positive causal effect of the exposure on the outcome. The power of SEM improved relative to the Wald estimator/2SLS as the instruments explained more residual variance in the "outcome" variable.

Indexed as

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisCausalityFeedbackHumansModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalBidirectional Mendelian randomizationCausationFeedback loopsMendelian randomizationReciprocal causationStructural equation modelling

Identifiers

PMID38822217
PMCPMC11196367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.