ArticlePLoS genetics2024
MR-SPLIT: A novel method to address selection and weak instrument bias in one-sample Mendelian randomization studies.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Canon enables causal inference of downstream genes in single-cell CRISPR studies via instrumental variable analysis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- A pseudotime-dependent TWAS framework identifies disease genes along cell developmental paths.HGG advances · 2026Article
- HDL Cholesterol Levels and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: Protective Effects Revealed.Current cancer drug targets · 2026Article
- Causal relationships between cerebrospinal fluid metabolites, immune cell traits, and head and neck cancers.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Efficient Mendelian randomization analysis with self-adaptive determination of sample structure and multiple pleiotropic effects.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Methylation risk score of C-reactive protein associates sleep health with related health outcomes.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Multi-omics analysis reveals glutathione metabolism-related immune suppression and constructs a prognostic model in lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Genetic predictors of traits in elderly subjects: risk of survival bias and reverse causation.European heart journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian Randomization (MR) is a widely embraced approach to assess causality in epidemiological studies. Two-stage least squares (2SLS) method is a predominant technique in MR analysis. However, it can lead to biased estimates when instrumental variables (IVs) are weak. Moreover, the issue of the winner's curse could emerge when utilizing the same dataset for both IV selection and causal effect estimation, leading to biased estimates of causal effects and high false positives. Focusing on one-sample MR analysis, this paper introduces a novel method termed Mendelian Randomization with adaptive Sample-sPLitting with cross-fitting InstrumenTs (MR-SPLIT), designed to address bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs, under the 2SLS IV regression framework. We show that the MR-SPLIT estimator is more efficient than its counterpart cross-fitting MR (CFMR) estimator. Additionally, we introduce a multiple sample-splitting technique to enhance the robustness of the method. We conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of our method with its counterparts. The results underscored its superiority in bias reduction, effective type I error control, and increased power. We further demonstrate its utility through the application of a real-world dataset. Our study underscores the importance of addressing bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs in one-sample MR analyses and provides a robust solution to the challenge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.