Cited by 290Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Semiparametric methods for estimation of a nonlinear exposure‐outcome relationship using instrumental variables with application to Mendelian randomization

Open access
Staley, James R., Burgess, Stephen·2017·Genetic Epidemiology

Published 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gepi.22041

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 .”

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

  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
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
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