ArticleVirology journal2025
COVID-19 and stroke MR study: data errors, timing gaps, statistical flaws.
Article in Virology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This correspondence critiques the Mendelian randomization study by Zhang et al. on the causal link between COVID-19 and ischemic stroke, highlighting three methodological concerns. First, the study incorrectly attributes the eQTL data to the GTEx database, whereas the actual source is the eQTLGen Consortium, necessitating correction for accurate data provenance. Second, the outcome data (collected prior to 2018) predate the COVID-19 pandemic (post-2019), violating the relevance assumption in instrumental variable analysis. This temporal mismatch may render observed associations biologically implausible, reflecting genetic pleiotropy or residual confounding rather than causal effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Third, the absence of multiple testing correction elevates the risk of false positives, undermining the validity of subsequent gene pathway analyses. Addressing these issues-revising data attribution, clarifying temporal limitations, and enhancing statistical rigor-would strengthen the study's reliability and translational implications.
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.