Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

86
Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
86
Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

6.8K
The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
6.8K
Epistasis Analysis01:09

Epistasis Analysis

4.9K
Although Mendel chose seven unrelated traits in peas to study gene segregation, most traits involve multiple gene interactions that create a spectrum of phenotypes. When the interaction of various genes or alleles at different locations influences a phenotype, this is called epistasis. Epistasis often involves one gene masking or interfering with the expression of another (antagonistic epistasis). Epistasis often occurs when different genes are part of the same biochemical pathway. The...
4.9K
Regression Toward the Mean01:52

Regression Toward the Mean

6.3K
Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when...
6.3K
Mismatch Repair01:20

Mismatch Repair

4.8K
Organisms are capable of detecting and fixing nucleotide mismatches that occur during DNA replication. This sophisticated process requires identifying the new strand and replacing the erroneous bases with correct nucleotides. Mismatch repair is coordinated by many proteins in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The Mutator Protein Family Plays a Key Role in DNA Mismatch Repair
The human genome has more than 3 billion base pairs of DNA per cell. Prior to cell division, that vast amount of genetic...
4.8K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

242
The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:
242

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Comparison of methods for assessing effects of risk factors on disease progression in Mendelian randomization under index event bias.

American journal of human genetics·2026
Same author

Opioid use disorder and dementia risk: evidence from observational and genetic analyses in diverse ancestry cohorts.

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association·2026
Same author

Integrating genetic data with biological insight: A practical guide to cis-Mendelian randomization.

American journal of human genetics·2026
Same author

Antidiabetic drug effects on gastrointestinal health: convergent evidence from a longitudinal cohort and Mendelian randomization study.

Journal of advanced research·2026
Same author

Genetically proxied IL-6 signaling inhibition, lipoprotein(a) levels, and atherosclerotic disease risk.

Atherosclerosis·2026
Same author

Robust human genetic evidence supporting causal effects of FGF21 on reducing alcohol consuming behaviours.

BMC medicine·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 13, 2025

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation
07:15

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation

Published on: January 16, 2019

11.0K

Addressing the credibility crisis in Mendelian randomization.

Stephen Burgess1,2, Benjamin Woolf3,4,5, Amy M Mason6,7

  • 1Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. sb452@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

BMC Medicine
|September 10, 2024
PubMed
Summary

Mendelian randomization (MR) studies are powerful but often flawed. This guide outlines five key pitfalls to avoid for reliable MR investigations, ensuring research credibility.

Keywords:
Bias evaluationCausal inferenceEvidence synthesisGenetic epidemiologyInstrumental variablesRisk of bias

More Related Videos

Transgenic Rodent Assay for Quantifying Male Germ Cell Mutant Frequency
14:45

Transgenic Rodent Assay for Quantifying Male Germ Cell Mutant Frequency

Published on: August 6, 2014

16.3K
In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila
00:06

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

Published on: August 20, 2019

13.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 13, 2025

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation
07:15

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation

Published on: January 16, 2019

11.0K
Transgenic Rodent Assay for Quantifying Male Germ Cell Mutant Frequency
14:45

Transgenic Rodent Assay for Quantifying Male Germ Cell Mutant Frequency

Published on: August 6, 2014

16.3K
In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila
00:06

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

Published on: August 20, 2019

13.6K

Area of Science:

  • Genetics
  • Epidemiology
  • Statistical Genetics

Background:

  • Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) facilitate large-scale Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses.
  • Publicly available summary data enables widespread two-sample MR studies.
  • An increase in low-quality MR publications risks undermining the method's credibility.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify critical pitfalls in conducting reliable Mendelian randomization investigations.
  • To provide a checklist for critical analysis choices in MR studies.
  • To guide researchers, editors, and peer reviewers in assessing MR study quality.

Main Methods:

  • Identification of five common pitfalls in MR study design and execution.
  • Development of a checklist for critical analysis choices.
  • Emphasis on rigorous evaluation of research questions, instrument selection, data interrogation, interpretation, and prior work engagement.

Main Results:

  • Five key pitfalls identified: inappropriate research question, instrument selection, findings interrogation, interpretation, and lack of engagement with previous work.
  • A checklist highlights critical choices for reliable MR investigations.
  • Editors and reviewers can identify low-quality submissions by focusing on validity indicators.

Conclusions:

  • Performing informative Mendelian randomization requires careful consideration of potential pitfalls.
  • Critical thought and interdisciplinary collaboration are essential for robust MR research.
  • Adherence to rigorous methodological standards is crucial for maintaining the integrity of MR studies.