ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Efficient Mendelian randomization analysis with self-adaptive determination of sample structure and multiple pleiotropic effects.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- METEOR: a data-adaptive Mendelian randomization method for powerful detection of shared and specific exposures underlying multiple outcomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Causal link between maternal PCOS and fetal/neonatal hemorrhagic and hematological disorders: A 2-sample MR study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Precision Target Discovery for Migraine: An Integrated GWAS-eQTL-PheWAS Pipeline.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- RMR-ICP: robust Mendelian randomization method accounting for idiosyncratic and correlated pleiotropy with applications to stroke outcomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) has emerged as a highly valuable tool for inferring the causal effects of exposures on outcomes in observational studies using genetic variants, typically single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), as instrumental variables (IVs). Standard MR typically involves three steps: inputs of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for both exposure and outcome, determination of IVs, and inference of causal effects. However, existing methods fail to simultaneously account for characteristics of GWAS data, uncertainty surrounding the validity of SNPs as IVs, and efficiency of estimating and testing the causal effect. Here, we developed MR method with self-adaptive determination of sample structure and multiple pleiotropic effects (MAPLE), a method for effective MR analysis. MAPLE utilizes correlated SNPs, self-adaptively accounts for the sample structure and the uncertainty that these correlated SNPs may exhibit multiple pleiotropic effects, and relies on a maximum-likelihood framework to infer the causal effects and obtain calibrated p values. We illustrate the advantage of MAPLE through comprehensively realistic simulations, where MAPLE, compared with another eight MR methods, shows calibrated type I error control and reduces false positives while being more powerful. In three types of lipid-trait-centric MR analyses in UK Biobank, MAPLE produces the most accurate causal-effect estimates in positive-control analyses evaluating the causal effect of each lipid trait on itself; reduces the false positives by 12.5% on average compared with existing methods in negative-control analyses investigating the causal effects of lipid traits on hair color and skin color; and highlights the causal effects of physical activity, alcohol, and smoking on lipid profiles in factor-screening analyses involving 412 trait pairs.
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.