Towards more plausible point-identifying assumptions in two-sample Mendelian randomization
Abstract
Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) is a widely used methodology in epidemiology. In two-sample MR, summary data (typically regression coefficients and standard errors) quantifying the association between multiple genetic variants and the exposure and the outcome are used in an instrumental variable framework to estimate the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome. Most two-sample MR methods assume that the association between each genetic variant and the exposure, as well as the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome, are constant on the additive scale. These assumptions are useful because they imply that, if all genetic variants were valid instruments, they would all estimate the same causal parameter - namely, the constant causal effect. We call this condition summary-level homogeneity. In this paper, we show that summary-level homogeneity follows from the following conditions: the causal effect is linear on the additive scale within population strata, but is not necessarily constant across strata; and heterogeneity in the causal effect is uncorrelated with heterogeneity in the association between each genetic variant and the exposure. Under these conditions, typical two-sample MR methods can be interpreted as estimators of the average causal effect. These results clarify that point-identifying assumptions required for two-sample MR methods are weaker than previously anticipated, making them more plausible and clarifying the interpretation of the resulting estimates if those assumptions hold.
Related
- What does two-sample Mendelian randomization estimate when the exposure-outcome relationship is nonlinear?
- One-Sample Mendelian Randomization and Instrumental Variable Analyses in R and Stata: The OneSampleMR and ivonesamplemr Packages
- Identifying Panel Conditioning with Refreshment Samples: Sharp Bounds and Design Assumptions
- Improving Mendelian Randomization Analysis by Instrument Borrowing from Auxiliary Outcome Traits
- Identifying and Measuring Treatment-Effect Heterogeneity across Sites through Within-Site Randomization
BibTeX
@misc{hartwig2026towards,
title = {{Towards more plausible point-identifying assumptions in two-sample Mendelian randomization}},
author = {Fernando Pires Hartwig and Neil Martin Davies and George Davey Smith},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.30640},
eprint = {2609.30640},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30640},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Towards more plausible point-identifying assumptions in two-sample Mendelian randomization
AU - Fernando Pires Hartwig
AU - Neil Martin Davies
AU - George Davey Smith
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.30640
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30640
AB - Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) is a widely used methodology in epidemiology. In two-sample MR, summary data (typically regression coefficients and standard errors) quantifying the association between multiple genetic variants and the exposure and the outcome are used in an instrumental variable framework to estimate the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome. Most two-sample MR methods assume that the association between each genetic variant and the exposure, as well as the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome, are constant on the additive scale. These assumptions are useful because they imply that, if all genetic variants were valid instruments, they would all estimate the same causal parameter - namely, the constant causal effect. We call this condition summary-level homogeneity. In this paper, we show that summary-level homogeneity follows from the following conditions: the causal effect is linear on the additive scale within population strata, but is not necessarily constant across strata; and heterogeneity in the causal effect is uncorrelated with heterogeneity in the association between each genetic variant and the exposure. Under these conditions, typical two-sample MR methods can be interpreted as estimators of the average causal effect. These results clarify that point-identifying assumptions required for two-sample MR methods are weaker than previously anticipated, making them more plausible and clarifying the interpretation of the resulting estimates if those assumptions hold.
ER -