ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Context-Stratified Mendelian Randomization: Exploiting Regional Exposure Variation to Explore Causal Effect Heterogeneity and Nonlinearity.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to make causal claims. Standard MR approaches typically report a single population-averaged estimate, limiting their ability to explore effect heterogeneity or nonlinear dose-response relationships. Existing stratification methods, such as residual-based and doubly-ranked stratified MR, attempt to overcome this but rely on strong and unverifiable assumptions. We propose an alternative, context-stratified Mendelian randomization, which exploits exogenous variation in the exposure across subgroups-such as recruitment centers, geographic regions, or time periods-to investigate effect heterogeneity and nonlinearity. Separate MR analyses are performed within each context, and heterogeneity in the resulting estimates is assessed using Cochran's Q statistic and meta-regression. We demonstrate through simulations that the approach detects heterogeneity when present while maintaining nominal false positive rates under homogeneity when appropriate methods are used. In an applied example using UK Biobank data, we assess the effect of vitamin D levels on coronary artery disease risk across 20 recruitment centers. Despite some regional variation in vitamin D distributions, there is no evidence for a causal effect or heterogeneity in estimates. Compared to stratification methods requiring model-based assumptions, the context-stratified approach is simple to implement and unaffected by collider bias, provided the context variable is exogenous. However, the method's power and interpretability depend critically on meaningful exogenous variation in exposure distributions between contexts. In the example of vitamin D, subgroups from other stratification methods explored a much wider range of the exposure distribution.
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.