ReviewNature genetics2026
Challenges and future directions for Mendelian randomization.
Review in Nature genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic clusters of BMI reveal symptom-specific causal effects on depression.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Genetically Predicted Gene Expression and Circulating Metabolites Associated with Cervical High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion: A Mendelian Randomization Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomization has evolved from a niche methodology to a widely adopted research approach. In this Perspective, we briefly present a bibliometric analysis of the Mendelian randomization literature to inform a discussion of how Mendelian randomization studies are conducted and how they do not fully realize the potential of the data and techniques available to empirically examine the reliability of assumptions. We propose that future progress will depend on integrating empirical evidence from molecular, cellular, animal and quasi-experimental studies to assess its assumptions and causal claims. We also highlight how the shifting landscape of genetic and genomic data presents new challenges and opportunities for the Mendelian randomization framework, providing a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41986691What 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.