Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40455395›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2025

Non-linear Mendelian randomization: evaluation of effect modification in the residual and doubly-ranked methods with simulated and empirical examples.

Fergus W Hamilton, David A Hughes, Tianyuan Lu, Zoltán Kutalik, Apostolos Gkatzionis, Kate Tilling, Fernando P Hartwig, George Davey Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Fergus W HamiltonMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. fergus.hamilton@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9760-4059
David A HughesPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Tianyuan LuLady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Zoltán KutalikDepartment of Computational Biology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Apostolos GkatzionisMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kate Tilling *MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Fernando P Hartwig *MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
George Davey Smith *MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00032/2Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 222894/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisBiasCausalityComputer SimulationGenotypeHumansNonlinear DynamicsBiostatisticsMendelian randomisationMethodsNLMR

Identifiers

PMID40455395
PMCPMC12263740

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.