Pith. sign in

REVIEW 71 references

Semiparametric Causal Discovery and Inference with Invalid Instruments

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read PLACID identifies causal DAGs and direct effects under unobserved confounding with possibly invalid instruments, using surrogate IVs and distance-correlation-based ARG recovery in a partially linear structural equation model.

arxiv 2504.12085 v1 pith:FYBSAVIV submitted 2025-04-16 stat.ME

Jing Zou , Wei Li , Wei Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME
keywords causalvariablesdiscoverymodelexistinginferenceinvalidlinear
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Researchers often want to know which genes or traits cause others, but observational data are complicated by hidden causes. Instrumental variables are external signals, such as DNA variants, that are used to cut through confounding. Standard methods require every instrument to affect only one target and assume linear relationships. PLACID relaxes both requirements.

PLACID uses distance correlation to find which external variables are related to which primary variables, then peels off leaf nodes to learn the ancestral graph. Even when some instruments act on multiple variables, the method builds surrogate instruments from the candidate set; these are functions, such as centered products, that are orthogonal to the problematic parts. Moment equations involving these surrogates identify the direct causal effects one path length at a time, and generalized method of moments estimates them. The authors prove consistency, asymptotic normality, and false discovery rate control, and simulations show PLACID outperforming linear competitors.

The discrete-instrument version is the cleanest and most relevant for SNP data. For continuous instruments, the paper approximates an infinite-dimensional surrogate space with a finite basis but does not provide conditions that make the approximation error vanish, so the asymptotic guarantees are not fully supported in that setting. No code is provided, and some tuning choices are unspecified.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1 states that under Assumptions 1-4, the edge set E and causal parameters {β*_ij} in model (2) are identifiable. The paper further claims PLACID consistently learns ancestral relations and candidate IV sets (Theorem 2), produces asymptotically normal estimates (Theorem 3), and controls FDR in edge recovery (Theorem 4). If the paper is correct, practitioners can estimate direct causal effects among observed variables with hidden confounders and invalid instruments without specifying the functional form of instrument effects.

Load-bearing premise

The unstated condition that the finite basis chosen to approximate the infinite-dimensional surrogate space Zγ(XcaG(k)) is dense enough and truncated so that GMM bias vanishes is load-bearing for continuous instruments. The text defines Zγ as an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space for continuous X and then Algorithm 2 uses a finite set of polynomial tensor products; Theorem 3 gives no growth or approximation conditions, so if the truncation error does not vanish, the claimed asymptotic normality and FDR control do not follow. This is a tooling assumption distinct from the identification claim, which only asserts existence of a unique solution.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the partially linear SEM, four structural assumptions, and standard asymptotic theorems. The hand-chosen quantities are γ, α, and the continuous basis; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • γ (minimum number of valid IVs per primary variable)
    User-specified input required by Assumption 3. If γ is chosen larger than the true number of valid IVs, the surrogate space Zγ is no longer adapted to the true valid set and identification can fail.
  • Distance-correlation significance level α
    Input to Algorithm 1. The consistency proof requires α=O(n^{-2}), but the paper does not give a practical default and the simulations do not state the value used.
  • Finite basis set and dimension for continuous X
    Algorithm 2 approximates the infinite-dimensional surrogate space Zγ with polynomial tensor products, but no rule or growth condition is provided, and the approximation error is not analyzed in Theorem 3.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Partially linear SEM: Y_j = Σ β*_ij Y_i + g_j(X_inG(j)) + ε_j, X⊥⊥ε_j, and no edges from Y to X.
    Defines the causal model; if X were affected by Y or correlated with ε, the IV logic fails. Stated as model (2) in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: candidate IVs are mutually independent.
    Used to establish the conditional independence X_inG(j)⊥⊥X_caG(k) | X_caG(k)\ivG(k) and the orthogonality properties of D(α). The Discussion proposes a future relaxation.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: faithfulness when X intervenes on an unmediated parent.
    Required for leaf identification via dependence tests; a faithfulness analog in causal discovery.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: at least γ valid IVs per primary variable.
    Guarantees that the true valid set is one of the subsets whose intersection defines Zγ. Without it, the surrogate space has no reason to be orthogonal to invalid-IV components.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: surrogate IV relevance, ||E{Zγ Y_k}||_0 > 0.
    Rank condition ensuring that the moment equations have a unique solution. It is not implied by the earlier assumptions and is asserted for each primary variable with descendants.
  • standard math Standard asymptotic results for distance correlation and GMM from Székely et al. (2007), Hall (2005), and Hansen (1982).
    Used in the proofs of Theorems 2-4 as external benchmark results.
  • domain assumption Regularity conditions B.1-B.8 for GMM inference.
    Imported from Hall (2005) in the proof of Theorem 3; not stated in the main text but required for asymptotic normality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semiparametric Causal Discovery and Inference with Invalid Instruments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYBSAVIV

@misc{pith2026250412085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semiparametric Causal Discovery and Inference with Invalid Instruments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYBSAVIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12085}
}
read the original abstract

Learning causal relationships among a set of variables, as encoded by a directed acyclic graph, from observational data is complicated by the presence of unobserved confounders. Instrumental variables (IVs) are a popular remedy for this issue, but most existing methods either assume the validity of all IVs or postulate a specific form of relationship, such as a linear model, between the primary variables and the IVs. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a partially linear structural equation model for causal discovery and inference that accommodates potentially invalid IVs and allows for general dependence of the primary variables on the IVs. We establish identification under this semiparametric model by constructing surrogate valid IVs, and develop a finite-sample procedure for estimating the causal structures and effects. Theoretically, we show that our procedure consistently learns the causal structures, yields asymptotically normal estimates, and effectively controls the false discovery rate in edge recovery. Simulation studies demonstrate the superiority of our method over existing competitors, and an application to inferring gene regulatory networks in Alzheimer's disease illustrates its usefulness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12085 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of the causal graph G. where E = {(i, j) : Yi → Yj} is the set of directed edges among Y, and I = {(ℓ, j) : Xℓ → Yj} is the set of directed edges from X to Y. Note that there is no directed edge from Y to X, and thus X can be viewed as external interventions. Based on G, we adopt the following terminology: (i) the parent set of Yj , paG(j) = {k : Yk → Yj}; (ii) if there exists a directed path from Yk to Y… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Causal relationships in the case where meG(k, j) = ∅. of causal models where at least γ of the candidate IVs are valid but their identities are unknown. They then proposed a class of G-estimators (Robins et al., 1992; Vansteelandt and Joffe, 2014) and developed semiparametric efficiency theory. To extend this idea to our causal graph setting, we first give the following definition. Definition 3. For each primary var… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Estimated gene regulatory networks for the (a) AD-MCI and (b) CN groups. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Partial residual plots for the AD-MCI and CN groups. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agrawal, R., Squires, C., Prasad, N., and Uhler, C. (2023). The DeCAMFounder : Nonlinear causal discovery in the presence of hidden variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B , 85(5):1639--1658

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    D., Imbens, G

    Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., and Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American statistical Association , 91(434):444--455

    1996

  3. [3]

    Baiocchi, M., Cheng, J., and Small, D. S. (2014). Instrumental variable methods for causal inference. Statistics in Medicine , 33(13):2297--2340

    2014

  4. [4]

    Barab \'a si, A.-L., Gulbahce, N., and Loscalzo, J. (2011). Network medicine: A network-based approach to human disease. Nature Reviews Genetics , 12(1):56--68

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    and Yekutieli, D

    Benjamini, Y. and Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics , 29(4):1165--1188

    2001

  6. [6]

    Bloom, G. S. (2014). Amyloid- and tau: The trigger and bullet in A lzheimer disease pathogenesis. JAMA Neurology , 71(4):505--508

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., and Burgess, S. (2015). Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through egger regression. International Journal of Epidemiology , 44(2):512--525

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    C., and Burgess, S

    Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., Haycock, P. C., and Burgess, S. (2016). Consistent estimation in M endelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genetic Epidemiology , 40(4):304--314

    work page 2016

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    C., Walker, I., and Glocker, B

    Castro, D. C., Walker, I., and Glocker, B. (2020). Causality matters in medical imaging. Nature Communications , 11:3673

    2020

  2. [10]

    A., and Willsky, A

    Chandrasekaran, V., Parrilo, P. A., and Willsky, A. S. (2012). Latent variable graphical model selection via convex optimization. The Annals of Statistics , 40(4):1935--1967

    2012

  3. [11]

    Chen, C., Ren, M., Zhang, M., and Zhang, D. (2018). A two-stage penalized least squares method for constructing large systems of structural equations. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 19(2):1--34

    2018

  4. [12]

    L., and Lewis, G

    Chen, J., Chen, D. L., and Lewis, G. (2020). Mostly harmless machine learning: Learning optimal instruments in linear IV models. In NeurIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Economic Policy

    2020

  5. [13]

    Chen, L., Li, C., Shen, X., and Pan, W. (2024). Discovery and inference of a causal network with hidden confounding. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 119(548):2572--2584

    2024

  6. [14]

    Chen, S., Lin, Z., Shen, X., Li, L., and Pan, W. (2023). Inference of causal metabolite networks in the presence of invalid instrumental variables with GWAS summary data. Genetic Epidemiology , 47(8):585--599

    2023

  7. [15]

    H., Kim, Y

    Choi, S. H., Kim, Y. H., Hebisch, M., Sliwinski, C., Lee, S., D'Avanzo, C., Chen, H., Hooli, B., Asselin, C., Muffat, J., Klee, J. B., Zhang, C., Wainger, B. J., Peitz, M., Kovacs, D. M., Woolf, C. J., Wagner, S. L., Tanzi, R. E., and Kim, D. Y. (2014). A three-dimensional hum...

    2014

  8. [16]

    Clarke, P. S. and Windmeijer, F. (2012). Instrumental variable estimators for binary outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 107(500):1638--1652

    2012

  9. [17]

    H., Kalisch, M., and Richardson, T

    Colombo, D., Maathuis, M. H., Kalisch, M., and Richardson, T. S. (2012). Learning high-dimensional directed acyclic graphs with latent and selection variables. The Annals of Statistics , 40(1):294--321

    2012

  10. [18]

    Cook, R. D. (1993). Exploring partial residual plots. Technometrics , 35(4):351--362

    1993

  11. [19]

    Didelez, V., Meng, S., and Sheehan, N. A. (2010). Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Statistical Science , 25(1):22--40

    2010

  12. [20]

    Dominici, F., McDermott, A., and Hastie, T. J. (2004). Improved semiparametric time series models of air pollution and mortality. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 99(468):938--948

    2004

  13. [21]

    and B \"u hlmann, P

    Emmenegger, C. and B \"u hlmann, P. (2021). Regularizing double machine learning in partially linear endogenous models. Electronic Journal of Statistics , 15(2):6461--6543

    2021

  14. [22]

    F., Granger, C

    Engle, R. F., Granger, C. W. J., Rice, J., and Weiss, A. (1986). Semiparametric estimates of the relation between weather and electricity sales. Journal of the American statistical Association , 81(394):310--320

    1986

  15. [23]

    Florens, J.-P., Johannes, J., and Van Bellegem, S. (2012). Instrumental regression in partially linear models. The Econometrics Journal , 15(2):304--324

    2012

  16. [24]

    Frot, B., Nandy, P., and Maathuis, M. H. (2019). Robust causal structure learning with some hidden variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B , 81(3):459--487

    2019

  17. [25]

    Glymour, C., Zhang, K., and Spirtes, P. (2019). Review of causal discovery methods based on graphical models. Frontiers in Genetics , 10:524

    2019

  18. [26]

    P., Rohrer, J

    Grosz, M. P., Rohrer, J. M., and Thoemmes, F. (2020). The taboo against explicit causal inference in nonexperimental psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 15(5):1243--1255

    2020

  19. [27]

    T., and Small, D

    Guo, Z., Kang, H., Cai, T. T., and Small, D. S. (2018). Confidence intervals for causal effects with invalid instruments by using two-stage hard thresholding with voting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B , 80(4):793--815

    2018

  20. [28]

    Hall, A. R. (2005). Generalized Method of Moments . Oxford University Press

    2005

  21. [29]

    Hansen, L. P. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica , 50(4):1029--1054

    1982

  22. [30]

    P., Davey Smith, G., and Bowden, J

    Hartwig, F. P., Davey Smith, G., and Bowden, J. (2017). Robust inference in summary data M endelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. International Journal of Epidemiology , 46(6):1985--1998

    2017

  23. [31]

    H., and Meinshausen, N

    Heinze-Deml, C., Maathuis, M. H., and Meinshausen, N. (2018). Causal structure learning. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , 5:371--391

    2018

  24. [32]

    Hemani, G., Tilling, K., and Davey Smith, G. (2017). Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data. PLoS Genetics , 13(11):e1007081

    2017

  25. [33]

    Hines, O., Vansteelandt, S., and Diaz-Ordaz, K. (2021). Robust inference for mediated effects in partially linear models. Psychometrika , 86(2):595--618

    2021

  26. [34]

    T., and Small, D

    Kang, H., Zhang, A., Cai, T. T., and Small, D. S. (2016). Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments and its application to M endelian randomization. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 111(513):132--144

    2016

  27. [35]

    Koles \'a r, M., Chetty, R., Friedman, J., Glaeser, E., and Imbens, G. W. (2015). Identification and inference with many invalid instruments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 33(4):474--484

    2015

  28. [36]

    Li, C., Shen, X., and Pan, W. (2023). Inference for a large directed acyclic graph with unspecified interventions. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 24(73):1--48

    2023

  29. [37]

    Li, C., Shen, X., and Pan, W. (2024). Nonlinear causal discovery with confounders. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 119(546):1205--1214

    2024

  30. [38]

    Li, R., Zhong, W., and Zhu, L. (2012). Feature screening via distance correlation learning. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 107(499):1129--1139

    2012

  31. [39]

    M., and Carroll, R

    Liang, H., Wang, S., Robins, J. M., and Carroll, R. J. (2004). Estimation in partially linear models with missing covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 99(466):357--367

    2004

  32. [40]

    V., Zhang, J., Hoe, H.-S., Wang, B., Cole, S

    Liu, Q., Zerbinatti, C. V., Zhang, J., Hoe, H.-S., Wang, B., Cole, S. L., Herz, J., Muglia, L., and Bu, G. (2007). Amyloid precursor protein regulates brain apolipoprotein E and cholesterol metabolism through lipoprotein receptor LRP1 . Neuron , 56(1):66--78

    2007

  33. [41]

    and Danks, D

    Malinsky, D. and Danks, D. (2018). Causal discovery algorithms: A practical guide. Philosophy Compass , 13(1):e12470

    2018

  34. [42]

    C., Keller, M

    Neto, E. C., Keller, M. P., Attie, A. D., and Yandell, B. S. (2010). Causal graphical models in systems genetics: A unified framework for joint inference of causal network and genetic architecture for correlated phenotypes. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 4(1):320--339

    2010

  35. [43]

    Newey, W. K. (1990). Efficient instrumental variables estimation of nonlinear models. Econometrica , 58(4):809--837

    1990

  36. [44]

    Newey, W. K. (1993). Efficient estimation of models with conditional moment restrictions. In Econometrics , volume 11 of Handbook of Statistics , pages 419--454. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    1993

  37. [45]

    Newey, W. K. and Powell, J. L. (2003). Instrumental variable estimation of nonparametric models. Econometrica , 71(5):1565--1578

    2003

  38. [46]

    J., Smith, J

    Oates, C. J., Smith, J. Q., and Mukherjee, S. (2016). Estimating causal structure using conditional DAG models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 17(54):1--23

    2016

  39. [47]

    O'Brien, R. J. and Wong, P. C. (2011). Amyloid precursor protein processing and A lzheimer's disease. Annual Review of Neuroscience , 34:185--204

    2011

  40. [48]

    A., Delaneau, O., Panousis, N

    Ongen, H., Brown, A. A., Delaneau, O., Panousis, N. I., Nica, A. C., Consortium, G., and Dermitzakis, E. T. (2017). Estimating the causal tissues for complex traits and diseases. Nature Genetics , 49(12):1676--1683

    2017

  41. [49]

    Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition

    2009

  42. [50]

    Peters, J., Janzing, D., and Sch \"o lkopf, B. (2017). Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2017

  43. [51]

    Purcell, S., Neale, B., Todd-Brown, K., Thomas, L., Ferreira, M. A. R., Bender, D., Maller, J., Sklar, P., de Bakker, P. I. W., Daly, M. J., and Sham, P. C. (2007). PLINK : A tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. American Journal of Human...

    2007

  44. [52]

    N., Luna, G., Guzman, E., Audouard, M., Challis, C., Sibih, Y

    Rauch, J. N., Luna, G., Guzman, E., Audouard, M., Challis, C., Sibih, Y. E., Leshuk, C., Hernandez, I., Wegmann, S., Hyman, B. T., Gradinaru, V., Kampmann, M., and Kosik, K. S. (2020). LRP1 is a master regulator of tau uptake and spread. Nature , 580(7803):381--385

    2020

  45. [53]

    M., Mark, S

    Robins, J. M., Mark, S. D., and Newey, W. K. (1992). Estimating exposure effects by modelling the expectation of exposure conditional on confounders. Biometrics , 48(2):479--495

    1992

  46. [54]

    Robinson, P. M. (1988). Root- N -consistent semiparametric regression. Econometrica , 56(4):931--954

    1988

  47. [55]

    a usler, D., Ernest, J., and B \

    Rothenh \"a usler, D., Ernest, J., and B \"u hlmann, P. (2018). Causal inference in partially linear structural equation models. The Annals of Statistics , 46(6A):2904--2938

    2018

  48. [56]

    Runge, J., Nowack, P., Kretschmer, M., Flaxman, S., and Sejdinovic, D. (2019). Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets. Science Advances , 5(11):eaau4996

    2019

  49. [57]

    Serrano-Pozo, A., Das, S., and Hyman, B. T. (2021). APOE and A lzheimer's disease: Advances in genetics, pathophysiology, and therapeutic approaches. The Lancet Neurology , 20(1):68--80

    2021

  50. [58]

    Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., and Scheines, R. (2001). Causation, Prediction, and Search . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2nd edition

    2001

  51. [59]

    E., Meister, S., Nahrath, J., Mei ner, J

    Storck, S. E., Meister, S., Nahrath, J., Mei ner, J. N., Schubert, N., Di Spiezio, A., Baches, S., Vandenbroucke, R. E., Bouter, Y., Prikulis, I., Korth, C., Weggen, S., Heimann, A., Schwaninger, M., Bayer, T. A., and Pietrzik, C. U. (2016). Endothelial LRP1 transports amyloid...

    2016

  52. [60]

    Sun, B., Liu, Z., and Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J. (2023). Semiparametric efficient G -estimation with invalid instrumental variables. Biometrika , 110(4):953--971

    2023

  53. [61]

    J., Rizzo, M

    Sz \'e kely, G. J., Rizzo, M. L., and Bakirov, N. K. (2007). Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances. The Annals of Statistics , 35(6):2769--2794

    2007

  54. [62]

    J., Robins, J

    Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J., Robins, J. M., and Rotnitzky, A. (2010). On doubly robust estimation in a semiparametric odds ratio model. Biometrika , 97(1):171--180

    2010

  55. [63]

    Triantafillou, S., Lagani, V., Heinze-Deml, C., Schmidt, A., Tegner, J., and Tsamardinos, I. (2017). Predicting causal relationships from biological data: Applying automated causal discovery on mass cytometry data of human immune cells. Scientific Reports , 7:12724

    2017

  56. [64]

    and Joffe, M

    Vansteelandt, S. and Joffe, M. (2014). Structural nested models and G -estimation: The partially realized promise. Statistical Science , 29(4):707--731

    2014

  57. [65]

    J., Camgoz, N

    Vowels, M. J., Camgoz, N. C., and Bowden, R. (2022). D’ya like DAG s? A survey on structure learning and causal discovery. ACM Computing Surveys , 55(4):82

    2022

  58. [66]

    Wang, X., Pan, W., Hu, W., Tian, Y., and Zhang, H. (2015). Conditional distance correlation. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 110(512):1726--1734

    2015

  59. [67]

    Windmeijer, F., Farbmacher, H., Davies, N., and Davey Smith, G. (2019). On the use of the L asso for instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 114(527):1339--1350

    2019

  60. [68]

    and Pan, W

    Xue, H. and Pan, W. (2020). Inferring causal direction between two traits in the presence of horizontal pleiotropy with GWAS summary data. PLOS Genetics , 16(11):e1009105

    2020

  61. [69]

    Ye, T., Shao, J., and Kang, H. (2021). Debiased inverse-variance weighted estimator in two-sample summary-data M endelian randomization. The Annals of Statistics , 49(4):2079--2100

    2021

  62. [70]

    Zhao, Q., Wang, J., Hemani, G., Bowden, J., and Small, D. S. (2020). Statistical inference in two-sample summary-data M endelian randomization using robust adjusted profile score. The Annals of Statistics , 48(3):1742--1769

    2020

  63. [71]

    Zilinskas, R., Li, C., Shen, X., Pan, W., and Yang, T. (2024). Inferring a directed acyclic graph of phenotypes from GWAS summary statistics. Biometrics , 80(1):ujad039

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.