Cited by 1,605Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health

Multivariable Mendelian randomization: the use of pleiotropic genetic variants to estimate causal effects.

Open access
Burgess, S., Thompson, S. G.·2015·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

A conventional Mendelian randomization analysis assesses the causal effect of a risk factor on an outcome by using genetic variants that are solely associated with the risk factor of interest as instrumental variables. However, in some cases, such as the case of triglyceride level as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, it may be difficult to find a relevant genetic variant that is not also associated with related risk factors, such as other lipid fractions. Such a variant is known as pleiotropic. In this paper, we propose an extension of Mendelian randomization that uses multiple genetic variants associated with several measured risk factors to simultaneously estimate the causal effect of each of the risk factors on the outcome. This "multivariable Mendelian randomization" approach is similar to the simultaneous assessment of several treatments in a factorial randomized trial. In this paper, methods for estimating the causal effects are presented and compared using real and simulated data, and the assumptions necessary for a valid multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis are discussed. Subject to these assumptions, we demonstrate that triglyceride-related pathways have a causal effect on the risk of coronary heart disease independent of the effects of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

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 · 10.1093/aje/kwu283

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Multivariable instrumental variable analysis and a series of other relevant MR sensitivity analyses showed no major deviations and did not change conclusions from the main instrumental variable findings.

    “These analyses showed no major deviations and did not change conclusions from the main instrumental variable findings.”

    From Plasma levels of apolipoprotein E, <i>APOE</i> genotype, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in 105 949 individuals from a white general population cohort (2019) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Simulation Study reports that some estimates did not change substantially across simulated parameters, but it does not assess the citing study’s instrumental-variable findings. I searched for sensitivity analyses showing no major deviations or unchanged conclusions; no passage in our copy reports that result. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mendelian randomization analyses for investigating drug targets often use variants in a single gene region, typically the gene that encodes the protein target under investigation.

    “Mendelian randomization analyses for investigating drug targets often use variants in a single gene region, typically the gene that encodes the protein target under investigation 57, 58 .”

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: 1

  1. [16]Angrist JD Pischke JS Instrumental variables in action: sometimes you get what you need Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion 2009 Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press 113 220

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burgess, S., & Thompson, S. G.
Corresponding author
Burgess, S.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2015-01-27
Volume
181
Issue
4
Pages
251-260
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W4210703904
Cited by
1,605
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 131 · 2025: 257 · 2024: 417 · 2023: 252 · 2022: 181 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
17.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (100114)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10165)
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/08/014/24067)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Keywords
multivariable Mendelian randomization, causal effect estimation, triglycerides, coronary artery disease, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, lipid fractions, instrumental variables, cardiovascular risk
MeSH terms
Coronary Disease, United Kingdom, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Mathematical Computing, Models, Genetic, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Triglycerides, Genetic Variation, Biomarkers, Causality, 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