ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Multivariable Mendelian Randomization With Weak Instruments: A Comparison of Bayesian and Frequentist Methods.
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
Weak instruments are a well-known limitation for valid causal inference in Mendelian randomization studies. In the single exposure setting, weak instrument bias can be mitigated by selecting genetic instruments which are strongly associated with the exposure according to p-value and/or F-statistic thresholds. However, in the multi-exposure setting, genetic instruments may be strongly associated with an exposure but weakly associated with it conditional on all other exposures in the analysis. It is therefore more difficult to guarantee conditionally strong instruments in multivariable Mendelian randomization. Weak instrument bias can be mitigated using modeling approaches; however, there are fewer methods for doing this in the multivariable case compared with the single exposure case. In this paper, we consider a method for mitigating weak instrument bias in multivariable Mendelian randomization using a Bayesian framework: MVMR-Pony. We compare this method with existing frequentist methods. We show using simulation studies that the MVMR-Pony method outperforms the frequentist approaches with respect to bias, coverage, Type I error rates, and power, across settings where weak instrument bias arises due to correlated genetic effects, measurement error, and mediation.
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.