Evidence mapPaperPMID 41004399Full record

ArticleGenetics2025

Mendelian randomization with proxy exposures: challenges and opportunities.

Ida Rahu, Ralf Tambets, Eric B Fauman, Kaur Alasoo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ida RahuInstitute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu 51009, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0001-5497-5522
Ralf TambetsInstitute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu 51009, Estonia.
Eric B FaumanResearch and Development, Internal Medicine Research Unit, Pfizer, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.
Kaur AlasooInstitute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu 51009, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0002-1761-8881

Funding

Estonian Research Council MOB3ERC115Estonian Research Council PSG415
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A key challenge in human genetics is the discovery of modifiable causal risk factors for complex traits and diseases. Mendelian randomization (MR) using molecular traits as exposures is a particularly promising approach for identifying such risk factors. Despite early successes with the application of MR to biomarkers such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and C-reactive protein, recent studies have revealed a more nuanced picture, with widespread horizontal pleiotropy. Using data from the UK Biobank, we illustrate the issue of horizontal pleiotropy with 2 case studies, one involving glycolysis and the other involving vitamin D synthesis. We demonstrate that, although the measured metabolites (pyruvate or histidine, respectively) do not have a direct causal effect on the outcomes of interest (red blood cell count or vitamin D level), we can still use variant effects on these downstream metabolites to infer how they perturb protein function in different gene regions. This allows us to use variant effects on metabolite levels as proxy exposures in a cis-MR framework, thus rediscovering the causal roles of histidine ammonia lyase (HAL) in vitamin D synthesis and glycolysis pathway in red blood cell survival. We also highlight the assumptions that need to be satisfied for cis-MR with proxy exposures to yield valid inferences and discuss the practical challenges of meeting these assumptions.

Indexed as

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisBiomarkersGlycolysisHumansVitamin DBiomarkersVitamin DglycolysisHALMendelian randomizationpleiotropyUK Biobankvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID41004399
PMCPMC12693524

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.