Talk:Mendelian randomization

Edit request: suggested external link
This recently published blog post on Nature Networks gives a lay explanation of MR, at somewhat greater length than this article. It would seem to be an ideal external link, but since it's written by a colleague of mine, I'll leave the decision to others on whether to put it in. It's much more accessible to a general audience than the current external links. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mendelian randomization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103105404/http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/20th_Century/1990s/gray/gray-commentary.html to http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/20th_Century/1990s/gray/gray-commentary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Randomization approach
I find the phrase "effects on exposure patterns (e.g., propensity to drink alcohol) or effects that mimic those produced by modifiable exposures (e.g., raised blood cholesterol)" hard to understand. 129.240.43.144 (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to write "effect of exposure patterns, e.g. a SNP in the IL6R gene known to affect IL6 levels." The advantage is that it is then clear that the SNP is clearly working through the exposure, which is not sure with those alcohol examples. And since it's just an example it'd be important to have a simple example I think. (The reference could be e.g. PMID 22421340) Yinwang888 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

crappy article for an encyclopedia
I have a Phd in biochem and I can't make heads or tails of this, cause it is written so poorly 1 the explanation is at WAY to high a level 2 the explanation doesn't occur in the intro, but way below the fold 3 why is this sort of problem so freaking common in STEM articles in wikipedia do better people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)