The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization
Open accessAbstract
Instrumental variable estimates of causal effects can be biased when using many instruments that are only weakly associated with the exposure. We describe several techniques to reduce this bias and estimate corrected standard errors. We present our findings using a simulation study and an empirical application. For the latter, we estimate the effect of height on lung function, using genetic variants as instruments for height. Our simulation study demonstrates that, using many weak individual variants, two-stage least squares (2SLS) is biased, whereas the limited information maximum likelihood (LIML) and the continuously updating estimator (CUE) are unbiased and have accurate rejection frequencies when standard errors are corrected for the presence of many weak instruments. Our illustrative empirical example uses data on 3631 children from England. We used 180 genetic variants as instruments and compared conventional ordinary least squares estimates with results for the 2SLS, LIML, and CUE instrumental variable estimators using the individual height variants. We further compare these with instrumental variable estimates using an unweighted or weighted allele score as single instruments. In conclusion, the allele scores and CUE gave consistent estimates of the causal effect. In our empirical example, estimates using the allele score were more efficient. CUE with corrected standard errors, however, provides a useful additional statistical tool in applications with many weak instruments. The CUE may be preferred over an allele score if the population weights for the allele score are unknown or when the causal effects of multiple risk factors are estimated jointly.
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?
When multiple genetic variants can be identified that fulfill the IV conditions, they can be used to improve the statistical power of MR analyses.
“When multiple genetic variants can be identified that fulfill the IV conditions, they can be used to improve the statistical power of MR analyses.26,27”
From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
Weighted allele scores provide increased instrument strength and power, although there are cases in which the unweighted approach is preferred.
“Weighted scores provide increased instrument strength and power, although there are cases in which the unweighted approach is preferred — for example, if the definition of the exposure in the discovery dataset differs from the exposure variable in the estimation data.”
From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
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 64 · Cited by 140
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [20]Palmer TM Lawlor DA Harbord RM Sheehan NA Tobias JH Timpson NJ Davey Smith G Sterne JAC Using multiple genetic variants as instrumental variables for modifiable risk factors Statistical Methods Medical Research 2012 21 3 223 242 PMC3917707 21216802
- [32]Baum CF Schaffer ME Stillman S Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing Stata Journal 2007 7 4 465 506
- Authors
- Davies, N. M., von Hinke Kessler Scholder, S., Farbmacher, H., Burgess, S., Windmeijer, F., & Smith, G. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Department of Economics; University of Bristol; 8 Woodland Road Bristol BS8 1TN U.K.
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Davies, Neil M.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-11-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 454-468
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4305205
- OpenAlex
- W1988577995
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8
- FWCI
- 8.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
- mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Research Council (269874)
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12013/1-9,G0600705,G1002345)
- Fritz Thyssen Stiftung
- Wellcome Trust (100114,102215/2/13/2)
- 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, two-stage least squares, limited information maximum likelihood, standard error correction, genetic variants, height, lung function, causal effect estimation
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Alleles, Body Height, Computer Simulation, England, Female, Humans, Male, Random Allocation, Risk Factors, Genetic Variation, Vital Capacity, Cohort Studies, Bias, Causality, Likelihood Functions, Linear Models, 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