Semiparametric methods for estimation of a nonlinear exposure‐outcome relationship using instrumental variables with application to Mendelian randomization
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Mendelian randomization, the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables (IV), can test for and estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Most IV methods assume that the function relating the exposure to the expected value of the outcome (the exposure‐outcome relationship) is linear. However, in practice, this assumption may not hold. Indeed, often the primary question of interest is to assess the shape of this relationship. We present two novel IV methods for investigating the shape of the exposure‐outcome relationship: a fractional polynomial method and a piecewise linear method. We divide the population into strata using the exposure distribution, and estimate a causal effect, referred to as a localized average causal effect (LACE), in each stratum of population. The fractional polynomial method performs metaregression on these LACE estimates. The piecewise linear method estimates a continuous piecewise linear function, the gradient of which is the LACE estimate in each stratum. Both methods were demonstrated in a simulation study to estimate the true exposure‐outcome relationship well, particularly when the relationship was a fractional polynomial (for the fractional polynomial method) or was piecewise linear (for the piecewise linear method). The methods were used to investigate the shape of relationship of body mass index with systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure.
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?
The three IV conditions are not sufficient to derive a point estimate of the size of the effect of the exposure on the outcome.
“However, they are not sufficient to derive a point estimate of the size of the effect of the exposure on the outcome.28,29”
From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
One further method for identifying potential violations of the IV conditions when the exposure is binary or categorical is using IV inequality constraints.
“One further method for identifying potential violations of the IV conditions when the exposure is binary or categorical is using IV inequality constraints.29,67,68”
From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
Several large consortia have made summarized genetic association estimates publicly available for millions of variants.
“Several large consortia have made such estimates publicly available for millions of variants 30, 35, 36 .”
From Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations (2020) · cites this paper as [35]
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 37 · Cited by 290
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Arellano, M. (2003). Advances in economics and econometrics, theory and applications, Eight World Congress (Vol. II, pp. 358– 364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Authors
- Staley, J. R., & Burgess, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Burgess, Stephen
- Venue
- Genetic Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-03-20
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 341-352
- ISSN
- 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2272
- PMC
- PMC5400068
- OpenAlex
- W2951651423
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Genetic Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (G0800270, G66840)
- Pfizer (G73632)
- British Heart Foundation (SP/09/002)
- European Research Council (268834)
- Wellcome Trust (100114)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- Mendelian randomization, instrumental variables, fractional polynomials, piecewise linear functions, meta-regression, causal effect estimation, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure
- MeSH terms
- Blood Pressure, Computer Simulation, United Kingdom, Humans, Models, Genetic, Tissue Banks, Genetic Variation, Models, Statistical, Body Mass Index, Nonlinear Dynamics, 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