ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Mendelian Randomization With Longitudinal Exposure Data: Simulation Study and Real Data Application.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetics identifies obesity as a shared risk factor for co-occurring multiple long-term conditions.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Mendelian Randomization With Longitudinal Exposure Data: Simulation Study and Real Data Application.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimMendelian randomization (MR) is a widely used tool to estimate causal effects using genetic variants as instrumental variables. MR is limited to cross-sectional summary statistics of different samples and time points to analyze time-varying effects. We aimed at using longitudinal summary statistics for an exposure in a multivariable MR setting and validating the effect estimates for the mean, slope, and within-individual variability. SIMULATION STUDY: We tested our approach in 12 scenarios for power and type I error, depending on shared instruments between the mean, slope, and variability, and regression model specifications. We observed high power to detect causal effects of the mean and slope throughout the simulation, but the variability effect was low powered in the case of shared SNPs between the mean and variability. Mis-specified regression models led to lower power and increased the type I error. REAL DATA APPLICATION: We applied our approach to two real data sets (POPS, UK Biobank). We detected significant causal estimates for both the mean and the slope in both cases, but no independent effect of the variability. However, we only had weak instruments in both data sets.
conclusionWe used a new approach to test a time-varying exposure for causal effects of the exposure's mean, slope and variability. The simulation with strong instruments seems promising but also highlights three crucial points: (1) The difficulty to define the correct exposure regression model, (2) the dependency on the genetic correlation, and (3) the lack of strong instruments in real data. Taken together, this demands a cautious evaluation of the results, accounting for known biology and the trajectory of the exposure.
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.