ReviewStatistics in medicine2026
Mendelian Randomization Methods for Causal Inference: Estimands, Identification and Inference.
Review in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Genomic and Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals the Genetic Basis and Causal Association Between Obesity and Atrial Fibrillation.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- APOC1-Associated VLDL-Pathway Dysregulation in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Reproducible Cross-Cohort Transcriptomic Signature Associated With the Diagnostic-to-Treatment Interval.Chemical biology & drug design · 2026Article
- AI-based multimodal integration of genomics and electronic health records.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Gut microbiota and iron deficiency anemia: Mechanisms, microbial signatures, and dietary interactions (A narrative review).Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Causal interplay between lactose intolerance and gut microbiota: a combined bidirectional Mendelian randomization andFrontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- The gut-retina axis in diabetic retinopathy: a new paradigm for pathogenesis and therapeutic intervention.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Traditional Chinese Medicine: Unraveling Herbal Medicine's Mechanisms.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) has become an essential tool for causal inference in biomedical and public health research. By using genetic variants as instrumental variables, MR helps address unmeasured confounding and reverse causation, offering a quasi-experimental framework to evaluate causal effects of modifiable exposures on health outcomes. Despite its promise, MR faces substantial methodological challenges, including invalid instruments, weak instrument bias, and design complexities across different data structures. In this tutorial review, we aim to provide a systematic overview of MR methods for causal inference, emphasizing clarity of causal interpretation, study design comparisons, availability of software tools, and practical guidance for applied scientists. We organize the review around causal estimands, ensuring that analyses are anchored to well-defined causal questions. We discuss the problems of invalid and weak instruments, comparing available strategies for their detection and correction. We integrate discussions of population-based versus family-based MR designs, analyses based on individual-level versus summary-level data, and one-sample versus two-sample MR designs, highlighting their relative advantages and limitations. We also summarize recent methodological advances and software developments that extend MR to settings with many weak or invalid instruments and to modern high-dimensional omics data. Real-data applications, including UK Biobank and Alzheimer's disease proteomics studies, illustrate the use of these methods in practice. This review aims to serve as a tutorial-style reference for both methodologists and applied scientists.
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.