A Guide for Understanding and Designing Mendelian Randomization Studies in the Musculoskeletal Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly popular component of an epidemiologist's toolkit, used to provide evidence of a causal effect of one trait (an exposure, eg, body mass index [BMI]) on an outcome trait or disease (eg, osteoarthritis). Identifying these effects is important for understanding disease etiology and potentially identifying targets for therapeutic intervention. MR uses genetic variants as instrumental variables for the exposure, which should not be influenced by the outcome or confounding variables, overcoming key limitations of traditional epidemiological analyses. For MR to generate a valid estimate of effect, key assumptions must be met. In recent years, there has been a rapid rise in MR methods that aim to test, or are robust to violations of, these assumptions. In this review, we provide an overview of MR for a non‐expert audience, including an explanation of these key assumptions and how they are often tested, to aid a better reading and understanding of the MR literature. We highlight some of these new methods and how they can be useful for specific methodological challenges in the musculoskeletal field, including for conditions or traits that share underlying biological pathways, such as bone and joint disease. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".