Cited by 208Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Mendelian randomization analysis using mixture models for robust and efficient estimation of causal effects.

Open access
Qi, Guanghao, Chatterjee, Nilanjan·2019·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Mendelian randomization (MR) has emerged as a major tool for the investigation of causal relationship among traits, utilizing results from large-scale genome-wide association studies. Bias due to horizontal pleiotropy, however, remains a major concern. We propose a novel approach for robust and efficient MR analysis using large number of genetic instruments, based on a novel spike-detection algorithm under a normal-mixture model for underlying effect-size distributions. Simulations show that the new method, MRMix, provides nearly unbiased or/and less biased estimates of causal effects compared to alternative methods and can achieve higher efficiency than comparably robust estimators. Application of MRMix to publicly available datasets leads to notable observations, including identification of causal effects of BMI and age-at-menarche on the risk of breast cancer; no causal effect of HDL and triglycerides on the risk of coronary artery disease; a strong detrimental effect of BMI on the risk of major depressive disorder.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-019-09432-2

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • The mode-based method has been shown to have low precision in some simulated and real datasets.

    “The mode-based method has been shown to have low precision in some simulated and real datasets 26 .”
  • Two recent simulation studies recommended the contamination mixture method and MR-Mix as having the lowest mean squared error across a range of different methods.

    “Two recent simulation studies that compared different methods recommended the contamination mixture method 26 and MR-Mix 94 as having the lowest mean squared error across a range of different methods”

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
Qi, G., & Chatterjee, N.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Chatterjee, Nilanjan
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2019-04-26
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
1941-1941
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2941271956
Cited by
207
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 6
FWCI
10.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Genome Canada (C1287/A16563, U19 CA148065)
  • Government of Canada (C1287/A10710, U19 CA148065, 634935, PSR-SIIRI-701, C1287/A10118, HEALTH-F2-2009-223175, C1287/A16563, 633784)
  • Cancer Research UK (223175, U19 CA148065, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10710, C1287‐A10118, HEALTHF2-2009-223175, A10118, C1287, 633784, 634935, A16563, C1287-A10710, PSRSIIRI-701, A10710, C1287‐A16563)
  • European Commission (PSRSIIRI-701, U19 CA148065, 633784, C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, 634935, H2020, C1287/A16563, 223175)
  • National Institutes of Health (634935, 223175, 633784, PSR-SIIRI-701, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, HEALTH-F2-2009-223175, X01HG007492, H2020, CA148065, U19 CA148065, X01HG007492, U24OD023382)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (633784, U19 CA148065, 634935, PSR-SIIRI-701, C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, C1287/A16563, HEALTH-F2-2009-223175, 223175)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (C1287/A10710, X01HG007492, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, PSR-SIIRI-701, 634935, HEALTH-F2-2009-223175, 633784, U19 CA148065, 223175)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (X01HG007492)
  • National Cancer Institute (U19CA148065)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, horizontal pleiotropy, spike detection, normal mixture models, causal effect estimation, genetic instruments, effect size distribution, body mass index, age at menarche, breast cancer risk, coronary artery disease, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, major depressive disorder
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Algorithms, Breast Neoplasms, Coronary Artery Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Menarche, Risk Factors, Triglycerides, Genome, Human, Body Mass Index, Quantitative Trait, Heritable, Genome-Wide Association Study, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Datasets as Topic

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