Cited by 265Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Instrumental Variables Estimation With Some Invalid Instruments and its Application to Mendelian Randomization.

Kang, Hyunseung, Zhang, Anru, Cai, T. Tony, Small, Dylan S.·2016·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

Instrumental variables have been widely used for estimating the causal effect between exposure and outcome. Conventional estimation methods require complete knowledge about all the instruments’ validity; a valid instrument must not have a direct effect on the outcome and not be related to unmeasured confounders. Often, this is impractical as highlighted by Mendelian randomization studies where genetic markers are used as instruments and complete knowledge about instruments’ validity is equivalent to complete knowledge about the involved genes’ functions. In this article, we propose a method for estimation of causal effects when this complete knowledge is absent. It is shown that causal effects are identified and can be estimated as long as less than 50% of instruments are invalid, without knowing which of the instruments are invalid. We also introduce conditions for identification when the 50% threshold is violated. A fast penalized ℓ1 estimation method, called sisVIVE, is introduced for estimating the causal effect without knowing which instruments are valid, with theoretical guarantees on its performance. The proposed method is demonstrated on simulated data and a real Mendelian randomization study concerning the effect of body mass index(BMI) on health-related quality of life (HRQL) index. An R package sisVIVE is available on CRAN. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01621459.2014.994705

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Variable selection and dimension reduction approaches have been proposed to maximize the proportion of variance in the exposure explained by the selected variants while avoiding instability due to multicollinearity.

    “Variable selection and dimension reduction approaches have been proposed to maximize the proportion of variance in the exposure explained by the selected variants while avoiding instability due to multicollinearity 63 .”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kang, H., Zhang, A., Cai, T. T., & Small, D. S.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
2016-01-02
Volume
111
Issue
513
Pages
132-144
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W1991587639
Cited by
265
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
19.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
instrumental variables, invalid instruments, Mendelian randomization, causal effect estimation, causal identification, genetic instruments, body mass index, health-related quality of life, unmeasured confounding

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