Cited by 99Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Bias in Mendelian randomization due to assortative mating

Open access
Hartwig, Fernando Pires, Davies, Neil Martin, Davey Smith, George·2018·Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) has been increasingly used to strengthen causal inference in observational epidemiology. Methodological developments in the field allow detecting and/or adjusting for different potential sources of bias, mainly bias due to horizontal pleiotropy (or “off‐target” genetic effects). Another potential source of bias is nonrandom matching between spouses (i.e., assortative mating). In this study, we performed simulations to investigate the bias caused in MR by assortative mating. We found that bias can arise due to either cross‐trait assortative mating (i.e., assortment on two phenotypes, such as highly educated women selecting taller men) or single‐trait assortative mating (i.e., assortment on a single phenotype), even if the exposure and outcome phenotypes are not the phenotypes under assortment. The simulations also indicate that bias due to assortative mating accumulates over generations and that MR methods robust to horizontal pleiotropy are also affected by this bias. Finally, we show that genetic data from mother–father–offspring trios can be used to detect and correct for this bias.

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.22138

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • There is clear evidence from both MR and the natural experiment of an increase in the school leaving age that an increase in the number of years in education has a causal protective effect on health behaviours such as smoking.

    “For example, there is clear evidence from both MR and the natural experiment of an increase in the school leaving age that an increase in the number of years in education has a causal protective effect on health behaviours such as smoking.156–160”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [160]

  • Simulations might also help understand the plausible size and direction of bias induced by assortative mating, dynastic effects, and time varying effects, if deemed relevant.

    “Simulations might also help understand the plausible size and direction of bias induced by assortative mating,62 dynastic effects,9 63 and time varying effects,77 if deemed relevant.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carslake, D., Davies, N. M., Hemani, G., Windmeijer, F., Nilsen, T. I., Romundstad, P., & Davey Smith, G. (2015). Genetic variants as instruments to investigate assortative mating. Mendelian randomization Conference: From Bristol, U.K.: Population Health to Pharmaceutical Developments.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartwig, F. P., Davies, N. M., & Davey Smith, G.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit University of Bristol Bristol UK
Corresponding author
Hartwig, Fernando Pires
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-03
Volume
42
Issue
7
Pages
608-620
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W2810240697
Cited by
99
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetic Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/9)
  • Wellcome Trust (102215/2/13/2)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, assortative mating, bias, horizontal pleiotropy, causal inference, simulation study
MeSH terms
Body Height, Child, Computer Simulation, Fathers, Female, Genotype, Humans, Male, Models, Genetic, Mothers, Phenotype, Regression Analysis, Reproduction, Bias, Least-Squares Analysis, 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