Cited by 431Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments

Burgess, Stephen, Thompson, Simon G.·2011·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Mendelian randomization studies using genetic instrumental variables (IVs) are now being commonly used to estimate the causal association of a phenotype on an outcome. Even when the necessary underlying assumptions are valid, estimates from analyses using IVs are biased in finite samples. The source and nature of this bias appear poorly understood in the epidemiological field. We explain why the bias is in the direction of the confounded observational association, with magnitude relating to the statistical strength of association between the instrument and phenotype. We comment on the size of the bias, from simulated data, showing that when multiple instruments are used, although the variance of the IV estimator decreases, the bias increases. We discuss ways to analyse Mendelian randomization studies to alleviate the problem of weak instrument bias. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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/sim.4197

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • When using genetic variants as instruments, the association between the instrumental variable and the exposure is often weak, and using the interaction between this variant and a baseline covariate as an instrumental variable for the mediator would typically result in an even weaker instrumental variable for the mediator, leading to substantial finite sample bias and imprecision, even if all theIV

    “When using genetic variants as instruments, the association between the IV and the exposure is often weak, and thus using the interaction between this variant and a baseline covariate as an IV for the mediator would typically result in an even weaker IV for the mediator, leading to substantial finite sample bias and imprecision, even if all the IV assumptions were met.50”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burgess, S., & Thompson, S. G.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Burgess, Stephen
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03-22
Volume
30
Issue
11
Pages
1312-1323
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2166082348
Cited by
421
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/08/014/24067)
  • Medical Research Council
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, weak instrument bias, genetic instruments, finite-sample bias, multiple instruments, confounding, causal inference, instrument strength, bias-variance trade-off
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Genotype, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Random Allocation, Bias

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