ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2025
Non-linear Mendelian randomization: evaluation of effect modification in the residual and doubly-ranked methods with simulated and empirical examples.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 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.
- Context-Stratified Mendelian Randomization: Exploiting Regional Exposure Variation to Explore Causal Effect Heterogeneity and Nonlinearity.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Integrating genetic data with biological insight: A practical guide to cis-Mendelian randomization.American journal of human genetics · 2026Review
- Widespread genetic effect heterogeneity impacts bias and power in nonlinear Mendelian randomization.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Stratification-based instrumental variable analysis framework for nonlinear effect analysis.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- No More Free Lunch: Challenges to Mendelian Randomization Due to Sample Selection and Complex Methods.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-linear Mendelian randomisation (NLMR) is a relatively recently developed approach to estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome where this is expected to be non-linear. Two commonly used techniques-based on stratifying the exposure and performing Mendelian randomisation (MR) within each strata-are the residual and doubly-ranked methods. The residual method is known to be biased in the presence of genetic effect heterogeneity-where the effect of the genotype on the exposure varies between individuals. The doubly-ranked method is considered to be less sensitive to genetic effect heterogeneity. In this paper, we simulate genetic effect heterogeneity and confounding of the exposure and outcome and identify that both methods are susceptible to likely unpredictable bias in this setting. Using UK Biobank, we identify empirical evidence of genetic effect heterogeneity and show via simulated outcomes that this leads to biased MR estimates within strata, whilst conventional MR across the full sample remains unbiased. We suggest that these biases are highly likely to be present in other empirical NLMR analyses using these methods and urge caution in current usage. Simulated outcome analyses may represent a useful test to identify if genetic effect heterogeneity is likely to bias NLMR estimates in future analyses.
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.