Using Mendelian randomisation to infer causality in depression and anxiety research
Open accessAbstract
Depression and anxiety co-occur with substance use and abuse at a high rate. Ascertaining whether substance use plays a causal role in depression and anxiety is difficult or impossible with conventional observational epidemiology. Mendelian randomisation uses genetic variants as a proxy for environmental exposures, such as substance use, which can address problems of reverse causation and residual confounding, providing stronger evidence about causality. Genetic variants can be used instead of directly measuring exposure levels, in order to gain an unbiased estimate of the effect of various exposures on depression and anxiety. The suitability of the genetic variant as a proxy can be ascertained by confirming that there is no relationship between variant and outcome in those who do not use the substance. At present, there are suitable instruments for tobacco use, so we use that as a case study. Proof-of-principle Mendelian randomisation studies using these variants have found evidence for a causal effect of smoking on body mass index. Two studies have investigated tobacco and depression using this method, but neither found strong evidence that smoking causes depression or anxiety; evidence is more consistent with a self-medication hypothesis. Mendelian randomisation represents a technique that can aid understanding of exposures that may or may not be causally related to depression and anxiety. As more suitable instruments emerge (including the use of allelic risk scores rather than individual single nucleotide polymorphisms), the effect of other substances can be investigated. Linkage disequilibrium, pleiotropy, and population stratification, which can distort Mendelian randomisation studies, are also discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Risk of psychosis could be much greater in those at higher genetic risk.
“However, risk could be much greater in those at a higher genetic risk (66)”
From Association Between Cannabis and Psychosis: Epidemiologic Evidence (2016) · cites this paper as [66]
The Summary discusses genetic risk scores for substance use and the relationship of substance use to depression and anxiety, but does not address whether people at higher genetic risk have a much greater risk of psychosis. Searches for psychosis, schizophrenia, and genetic vulnerability found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Gage, S. H., Smith, G. D., Zammit, S., Hickman, M., & Munafò, M. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) University of Bristol Bristol United Kingdom
- Corresponding author
- Gage, Suzanne H.
- Venue
- Depression and Anxiety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07-11
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1185-1193
- ISSN
- 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6394
- PMC
- PMC4235433
- OpenAlex
- W1585044033
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 0.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- Mendelian randomization, depression, anxiety, substance use, smoking, tobacco use, causal inference, reverse causality, residual confounding, self-medication hypothesis, linkage disequilibrium, pleiotropy, population stratification, body mass index
- MeSH terms
- Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Research Design, Smoking, Linkage Disequilibrium, Causality, Substance-Related Disorders, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Mendelian Randomization Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review