ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Bayesian causal graphical model for joint Mendelian randomization analysis of multiple exposures and outcomes.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mendelianization: Concentrating Polygenic Signal Into a Single Causal Locus.Genetic epidemiology · 2026Article
- Recalibrating Mendelian randomization under winner's curse, sample structure and polygenicity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- METEOR: a data-adaptive Mendelian randomization method for powerful detection of shared and specific exposures underlying multiple outcomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- MR2G: A novel framework for causal network inference using GWAS summary data.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Bayesian network imputation methods applied to multi-omics data identify putative causal relationships in a type 2 diabetes dataset containing incomplete data: An IMI DIRECT Study.PLoS genetics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current Mendelian randomization (MR) methods do not reflect complex relationships among multiple exposures and outcomes as is typical for real-life applications. We introduce MrDAG, a Bayesian causal graphical model for summary-level MR analysis to detect dependency relations within the exposures, the outcomes, and between them to improve causal effects estimation. MrDAG combines three causal inference strategies. It uses genetic variation as instrumental variables to account for unobserved confounders. It performs structure learning to detect and orientate the direction of the dependencies within the exposures and the outcomes. Finally, interventional calculus is employed to derive principled causal effect estimates. In MrDAG the directionality of the causal effects between the exposures and the outcomes is assumed known, i.e., the exposures can only be potential causes of the outcomes, and no reverse causation is allowed. In the simulation study, MrDAG outperforms recently proposed one-outcome-at-a-time and multi-response multi-variable Bayesian MR methods as well as causal graphical models under the constraint on edges' orientation from the exposures to the outcomes. MrDAG was motivated to unravel how lifestyle and behavioral exposures impact mental health. It highlights first, education and second, smoking as effective points of intervention given their important downstream effects on mental health. It also enables the identification of a novel path between smoking and the genetic liability to schizophrenia and cognition, demonstrating the complex pathways toward mental health. These insights would have been impossible to delineate without modeling the paths between multiple exposures and outcomes at once.
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.