ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Checking Genetic Homogeneity Between Two Samples Using Summary Statistics With Application to Mendelian Randomization.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. 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
backgroundA common assumption in two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization (MR) studies is that the effect of an instrumental single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) on both the exposure and the outcome is consistent across the exposure and outcome samples. This assumption is more likely to hold when the minor allele frequency (MAF) of the instrumental SNP is similar in the two samples. However, in the common situation where MAF information is unavailable, there is currently no formal method to assess this condition, apart from heuristically matching the ethnic backgrounds of the exposure and outcome samples.
methodWe propose a simple method to assess whether the genetic variance of a SNP, which is uniquely determined by its minor allele frequency (MAF) under Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, is the same across two genome-wide association studies (GWASs). The method is motivated by the observation that, in linear-model GWASs, although the absolute magnitude of a SNP's variance cannot be recovered from summary statistics, its variance relative to that of other SNPs can be inferred. This observation continues to hold approximately when the underlying model is nonlinear.
resultsWe propose a V-V plot and a modified Bland-Altman plot to identify SNPs that have different genetic variances between two GWASs. Some published two-sample summary-data MR studies, unfortunately, seem to include SNPs that are not genetically homogeneous.
conclusionsThe proposed method provides a useful tool for enhancing the quality of a two-sample summary-data MR study. We advocate checking for equality of SNP MAFs between the exposure and the outcome GWASs before conducting a two-sample summary-data MR analysis, and our proposed method serves this purpose when the MAF information is missing in at least one of the two GWASs.
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.