Highlights the importance of gene-environment equivalence in Mendelian randomization, suggesting a need for improved understanding among practitioners.
The explosion of Mendelian Randomization (MR) submissions of dubious quality to journals globally is well recognized. Contributing to this deluge of publications may be the poor understanding among practitioners, reviewers, and editors of gene-environment equivalence, the fundamental principle of MR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: