{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2022:GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ","short_pith_number":"pith:GFWY646L","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"316d8f73cb8182991bbc00f3fe0d5ec438d56e24637e7155de7ab849661a01d3","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2203.08668","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Bias in multivariable Mendelian randomization studies due to measurement error on exposures","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"stat.ME","authors_text":"Andrew J. Grant, Jiazheng Zhu, Stephen Burgess","submitted_at":"2022-03-16T14:59:18Z","abstract_excerpt":"Multivariable Mendelian randomization estimates the causal effect of multiple exposures on an outcome, typically using summary statistics of genetic variant associations. However, exposures of interest in Mendelian randomization applications will often be measured with error. The summary statistics will therefore not be of the genetic associations with the exposure, but with the exposure measured with error. Classical measurement error will not bias genetic association estimates but will increase their standard errors. With a single exposure, this will result in bias toward the null in a two s"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2203.08668","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"stat.ME","submitted_at":"2022-03-16T14:59:18Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"6cc08372e5c94551d2cc7981fde6ad2444c99d5f53f4119d8c3c192514628d0d","abstract_canon_sha256":"e34c96dc1d9d9e6178ef2ee333db57bad9708e7353b810108efb98bee9c95292"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879522Z","signature_b64":"tFSi48Nz+VUfc0ASWnc544lHtQm81sjIrEWyo3PKj5i94gqDw+4gJQL53aGicLpBo/ihfCMUeZgXvYxaEFA+CA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"316d8f73cb8182991bbc00f3fe0d5ec438d56e24637e7155de7ab849661a01d3","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879097Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879097Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Bias in multivariable Mendelian randomization studies due to measurement error on exposures","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"stat.ME","authors_text":"Andrew J. Grant, Jiazheng Zhu, Stephen Burgess","submitted_at":"2022-03-16T14:59:18Z","abstract_excerpt":"Multivariable Mendelian randomization estimates the causal effect of multiple exposures on an outcome, typically using summary statistics of genetic variant associations. However, exposures of interest in Mendelian randomization applications will often be measured with error. The summary statistics will therefore not be of the genetic associations with the exposure, but with the exposure measured with error. Classical measurement error will not bias genetic association estimates but will increase their standard errors. With a single exposure, this will result in bias toward the null in a two s"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2203.08668","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2203.08668/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2203.08668","created_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2203.08668v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2203.08668","created_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"GFWY646LQGBJ","created_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"GFWY646LQGBJSG54","created_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"GFWY646L","created_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.26638","citing_title":"Multivariable Mendelian randomization with weak instruments: a comparison of Bayesian and frequentist methods","ref_index":16,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ","json":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/GFWY646L"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/GFWY646L","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2203.08668&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/GFWY646LQGBJSG54ADZ74DK6YQ/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T04:05:46.879153+00:00"}