Papers › A Focusing Framework for Testing Bi-Directional Causal Effects with GWAS Summary Data

A Focusing Framework for Testing Bi-Directional Causal Effects with GWAS Summary Data

14 Mar 2022arXiv:2203.06887links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Sai Li, Ting Ye

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a powerful method that uses genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to infer the causal effect of a modifiable exposure on an outcome. Although recent years have seen many extensions of basic MR methods to be robust to certain violations of assumptions, few methods were proposed to infer bi-directional causal relationships, especially for phenotypes with limited biological understandings. The presence of horizontal pleiotropy adds another layer of complexity. In this article, we show that assumptions for common MR methods are often impossible or too stringent in the existence of bi-directional relationships. We then propose a new focusing framework for testing bi-directional causal effects between two traits with possibly pleiotropic genetic variants. Our proposal can be coupled with many state-of-art MR methods. We provide theoretical guarantees on the Type I error and power of the proposed methods. We demonstrate the robustness of the proposed methods using several simulated and real datasets.

PaperPDFCode

Code

saili0103/bidirectionalmr officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections