ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
A Modification to Two-Stage Least Squares With Genetic Applications.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two-stage least squares (2SLS) is by default applied to infer a putative causal association between an exposure, such as a gene or a protein, with an outcome such as a complex disease or trait, in transcriptome- or proteome-wide association studies (TWAS/PWAS). In a typical two-sample setting for TWAS/PWAS, the stage 1 sample size is much smaller than that of stage 2. To reduce the resulting attenuation bias and estimation uncertainty in stage 1 and boost the statistical power of the conventional TWAS, we propose a new method, called reverse two-stage least squares (r2SLS): Instead of imputing a gene's expression (using genetic variants as instrumental variables, IVs) in stage 1 and then testing the association between the imputed expression and the observed outcome in stage 2 in the conventional 2SLS approach, we propose predicting the outcome (using IVs) and testing the association between the predicted outcome and the observed gene expression. Theoretically, we establish that the r2SLS estimator is asymptotically unbiased with a normal distribution. We also show theoretically when 2SLS and r2SLS are asymptotically equivalent and when r2SLS is asymptotically more efficient than 2SLS. We also consider the practical issue of how to select invalid IVs. We use simulations and three real data examples based on the GTEx gene expression data, UKB-PPP proteomic data, and several GWAS summary datasets to demonstrate some advantages of r2SLS over 2SLS, including possibly better type I error control, higher statistical power and robustness to weak IVs.
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.