Cited by 681Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetics and Physical Performance

A robust and efficient method for Mendelian randomization with hundreds of genetic variants

Open access
Burgess, Stephen, Foley, Christopher N, Allara, Elias, Staley, James R, Howson, Joanna M. M.·2020·Nature Communications

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) is an epidemiological technique that uses genetic variants to distinguish correlation from causation in observational data. The reliability of a MR investigation depends on the validity of the genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs). We develop the contamination mixture method, a method for MR with two modalities. First, it identifies groups of genetic variants with similar causal estimates, which may represent distinct mechanisms by which the risk factor influences the outcome. Second, it performs MR robustly and efficiently in the presence of invalid IVs. Compared to other robust methods, it has the lowest mean squared error across a range of realistic scenarios. The method identifies 11 variants associated with increased high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, decreased triglyceride levels, and decreased coronary heart disease risk that have the same directions of associations with various blood cell traits, suggesting a shared mechanism linking lipids and coronary heart disease risk mediated via platelet aggregation.

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/s41467-019-14156-4

Cites

58 of 58 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 constrained maximum likelihood (MR-cML) method performs selection of invalid instruments and estimation allowing any of the three instrument variable assumptions to be violated via either uncorrelated or correlated pleiotropy.

    “The constrained maximum likelihood (MR-cML) 25 is such a method that performs selection of invalid instruments and estimation allowing any of the three instrument variable assumptions to be violated via either uncorrelated or correlated pleiotropy.”
  • The MR-cML method offers a data perturbation/resampling scheme to account for uncertainty in model selection and so achieve better inferences in finite samples.

    “In addition to asymptotically valid inference, it also offers a data perturbation/resampling scheme to account for uncertainty in model selection and so achieve better inferences in finite samples.”

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: 3

  1. [23]Wooldridge J Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Chapter 15: Instrumental Variables Estimation And Two Stage Least Squares 2009 Nashville, TN South-Western
  2. [31]Dudbridge, F. & Newcombe, P. Handbook of Statistical Genomics 4th edn, 631–650 (Wiley Online Library, 2019).
  3. [51]Amemiya, T. Advanced Econometrics (Harvard University Press, 1985).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burgess, S., Foley, C. N., Allara, E., Staley, J. R., & Howson, J. M. M.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Burgess, Stephen
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2020-01-17
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
376-376
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996249643
Cited by
681
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 156 · 2024: 201 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 2
FWCI
36.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (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)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • RCUK | Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1, MC_UU_00002/7)
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194)
  • DH | National Institute for Health Research
  • Wellcome Trust (204623/Z/16/Z)
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 › Genetics and Physical Performance
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, robust estimation, causal inference, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, coronary artery disease, platelet aggregation, blood cell traits, lipid-lowering mechanism
MeSH terms
Coronary Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Research Design, Risk Factors, Triglycerides, Genetic Variation, Reproducibility of Results, Body Mass Index, Molecular Epidemiology, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, 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