Cited by 23Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Constrained instruments and their application to Mendelian randomization with pleiotropy

Open access
Jiang, Lai, Oualkacha, Karim, Didelez, Vanessa, Ciampi, Antonio, Rosa‐Neto, Pedro, Benedet, Andrea L., Mathotaarachchi, Sulantha, Richards, John Brent +2 more·2019·Genetic Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In Mendelian randomization (MR), inference about causal relationship between a phenotype of interest and a response or disease outcome can be obtained by constructing instrumental variables from genetic variants. However, MR inference requires three assumptions, one of which is that the genetic variants only influence the outcome through phenotype of interest. Pleiotropy, that is, the situation in which some genetic variants affect more than one phenotype, can invalidate these genetic variants for use as instrumental variables; thus a naive analysis will give biased estimates of the causal relation. Here, we present new methods (constrained instrumental variable [CIV] methods) to construct valid instrumental variables and perform adjusted causal effect estimation when pleiotropy exists and when the pleiotropic phenotypes are available. We demonstrate that a smoothed version of CIV performs approximate selection of genetic variants that are valid instruments, and provides unbiased estimates of the causal effects. We provide details on a number of existing methods, together with a comparison of their performance in a large series of simulations. CIV performs robustly across different pleiotropic violations of the MR assumptions. We also analyzed the data from the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) neuroimaging initiative (ADNI; Mueller et al., 2005. Alzheimer's Dementia, 11(1), 55–66) to disentangle causal relationships of several biomarkers with AD progression.

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.22184

Cites

93 of 93 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?

  • Recent methods such as sisVIVE and adaptive LASSO provide MR estimates that are robust to pleiotropy under certain assumptions.

    “Recent methods such as sisVIVE71 and adaptive LASSO72 provide MR estimates that are robust to pleiotropy under certain assumptions.”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [72]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Engle, R. F., Hendry, D. F., & Richard, J.‐F. (1983). Exogeneity. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 51, 277– 304.
  2. Grapentine, T. (2000). Path analysis vs. structural equation modeling. Marketing Research, 12(3), 12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jiang, L., Oualkacha, K., Didelez, V., Ciampi, A., Rosa‐Neto, P., Benedet, A. L., Mathotaarachchi, S., Richards, J. B., Greenwood, C. M. T., & Initiative, A. F. T. A. D. N.
Affiliations
  • Jewish General Hospital (CA)
  • Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
  • University of Bremen (DE)
  • Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
  • Translational Neuroimaging Laboratory, McGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging Douglas Hospital, McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Greenwood, Celia M. T.
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-12
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
373-401
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W2949803117
Cited by
23
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetic Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (W81XWH‐12‐2‐0012)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, pleiotropy, instrumental variable selection, causal effect estimation, genetic variants, Alzheimer's disease, biomarkers, ADNI, causal inference
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Genetic Variation, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Genetic Association Studies, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Genetic Pleiotropy

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