ArticleHGG advances2026
Bayesian Mendelian randomization methods for index trait bias correction in subsequent trait genome-wide association studies.
Article in HGG advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multi-omics Mendelian randomization analysis identifies SPATA20 as a cross-omic target in primary open angle glaucoma.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Index trait bias (also called index event bias) can occur in genetic studies due to conditioning on incident trait, which can bias genetic associations with subsequent traits. We propose the use of two Bayesian Mendelian randomization (MR) methods (Bayesian weighted MR [BWMR] and MR-HORSE) to correct index trait bias in genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of subsequent traits. We compare these Bayesian MR methods to previously proposed methods for index trait bias through a simulation study. We observe that BWMR has similar type I error compared to using an inverse variance weighted MR, weighted median MR, and Dudbridge but has an inflated type I error compared to SlopeHunter. MR-HORSE and SlopeHunter have similar type I errors for smaller correlations between incident and subsequent traits; however, MR-HORSE and SlopeHunter have better controlled type I error for a large negative correlation and large positive correlation, respectively. All methods have comparable power across correlations between incident and subsequent traits. We applied the methods to a GWAS of subsequent acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or 3-point major adverse cardiovascular event after an incident AIS event in the Million Veteran Program and for fasting insulin adjusted for body mass index, and we observed slight differences in the results between the correction methods. We observed that a single index trait bias correction method is not optimal across all scenarios; therefore, applying multiple methods and checking for consistency between the estimates could provide an approach to determine the presence of and correction for index trait bias.
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.