ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Mendelian Randomization Studies of Myopia: Choosing the Right Summary Statistics.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association Between Polymorphisms of 4 Common Genes and High Myopia Risk: A Comprehensive Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the causal effect of mitochondrial dysfunction on Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease using polygenic risk scores and Mendelian randomization.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Mendelian Randomization in Eye Research: Powerful, but Prone to Misuse.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the causal effect of mitochondrial dysfunction on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease using Polygenic Risk Scores and Mendelian Randomization.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To examine whether the choice of genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics can yield invalid or misleading conclusions in Mendelian randomization (MR) studies of myopia. Methods: The relationships between (1) years of full-time education and myopia, and (2) myopia and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), were used as exemplar test cases. MR analyses were performed with nine different sets of summary statistics for myopia: seven from sources widely used in published MR studies, plus two newly derived sets (a GWAS for myopia in either 66,773 unrelated participants or 93,036 participants that included relatives). Results: Using the two newly derived sets of summary statistics from GWAS for myopia in unrelated and related samples, MR analyses demonstrated a positive causal relationship between education and myopia: odds ratio (OR) for myopia = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10 to 1.26 and OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.23 per additional year of education, respectively, and a positive relationship between myopia and POAG: OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.19 and OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.21, respectively. MR analyses performed using existing published GWAS summary statistics yielded inconsistent results, including MR estimates that suggested education protected against myopia and that myopia reduced the risk of POAG. Re-analysis of a selection of published MR studies of myopia confirmed that most published results were invalid. Conclusions: Care is required when designing MR analyses. Many published MR studies of myopia have reported misleading results.
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.