ArticleBMC research notes2025
Woolf et al's "GWAS by subtraction" is not useful for cross-generational Mendelian randomization studies.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2026Pooled it
- Reassessing the validity of using weighted linear models to implement multi-generational GWAS-by-subtraction: a response to Evans et al.BMC research notes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.