Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40571936›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2025

Woolf et al's "GWAS by subtraction" is not useful for cross-generational Mendelian randomization studies.

David M Evans, George Davey Smith, Gunn-Helen Moen

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Assessing the causal effects of environmental tobacco smoke exposure: a meta-analytic Mendelian randomization study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David M EvansInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. d.evans1@uq.edu.au.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Gunn-Helen MoenInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DE220101226Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/1National Health and Medical Research Council 2017942Norges Forskningsråd 325640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) is an epidemiological method that can be used to strengthen causal inference regarding the relationship between a modifiable environmental exposure and a medically relevant trait and to estimate the magnitude of this relationship [1]. Recently, there has been considerable interest in using MR to examine potential causal relationships between parental phenotypes and outcomes amongst their offspring [2–4] (interestingly one of the earliest exemplars of MR was confirmation that antenatal maternal folate was protective against offspring neural tube defects [1]). In a recent issue of BMC Research Notes, Woolf, Sallis, Munafo and Gill (2023) [5] (abbreviated as WSMG from now on) present a method they call “GWAS by subtraction” (not to be confused with GWAS by subtraction via genomic SEM [6, 7]), to derive genome-wide summary statistics for paternal smoking and other “paternal phenotypes” with the goal that these estimates can then be used in downstream (including two sample) MR studies [8]. Whilst a potentially useful goal, WSMG (2023) focus on the wrong parameter of interest for useful genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and downstream cross-generational MR studies, and the estimator that they derive is neither efficient nor appropriate for such use.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyMendelian Randomization AnalysisHumansPhenotypeGWAS by subtractionMaternal effectsMendelian randomizationPaternal effectsSmoking

Identifiers

PMID40571936
PMCPMC12203724

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.