Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41569765›Full record

ReviewStatistics in medicine2026

Mendelian Randomization Methods for Causal Inference: Estimands, Identification and Inference.

Minhao Yao, Anqi Wang, Xihao Li, Zhonghua Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Minhao YaoCentre for Biomedical Data Science, Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Anqi WangDepartment of Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Xihao LiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8151-0106
Zhonghua LiuDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

Robust Mendelian Randomization Framework with Multi-Omics Data for Alzheimer's Disease and Related DementiasR01AG086379 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Zhonghua Liu · 2024 to 2026
$1.6M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG086379NIH HHS R01AG086379
6 · The paper itself

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

CausalityMendelian Randomization AnalysisBiasData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalResearch DesignSoftwarecausal genomicscausal inferenceinstrumental variablesMendelian randomizationomics dataUK Biobankunmeasured confounding

Identifiers

PMID41569765
PMCPMC12917735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.