ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2026
Mind the gap: Characterizing bias due to population mismatch in two-sample Mendelian randomization.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recalibrating Mendelian randomization under winner's curse, sample structure and polygenicity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- MRBEE-TL: improving causal effect estimation in multi-ancestry multivariable Mendelian randomization with transfer learning.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Improving causal effect estimation in multi-ancestry multivariable Mendelian randomization with transfer learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a statistical method for estimating causal effects using genetic variants as instrumental variables. In two-sample MR (2SMR), different study samples are used to estimate genetic associations with the exposure and outcome. For valid inference, these studies must include individuals from the same population. Using studies from different populations may bias the MR estimate due to differences in variant-exposure associations resulting from differences in linkage disequilibrium or genetic effects on the exposure trait. We show that violation of the same-population assumption leads to bias in the causal estimate toward zero on average and does not increase the rate of false positives when using the most common MR study design. We verify this result in a broad survey of MR estimates, comparing estimates made with matching and mismatching populations across 546 trait pairs measured in 2-7 ancestries. We find that most population-mismatched estimates are attenuated toward zero compared to their corresponding population-matched estimates and that increasing genetic distance between study populations is associated with greater shrinkage. We observe bias even when mismatched populations have the same continental ancestry. However, we also find that, in some cases, using a larger exposure study with mismatching ancestry can improve power by dramatically increasing precision. These results show that even intra-continental population mismatch can bias MR estimates but also suggest that there is potential to improve the power of MR in understudied populations by properly leveraging larger, mismatching study populations.
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.