Cited by 23Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies

Empirical comparisons of multiple Mendelian randomization approaches in the presence of assortative mating

Open access
Minică, Camelia C, Boomsma, Dorret I, Dolan, Conor V, de Geus, Eco, Neale, Michael C·2020·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Background: Mendelian randomization (MR) is widely used to unravel causal relationships in epidemiological studies. Whereas multiple MR methods have been developed to control for bias due to horizontal pleiotropy, their performance in the presence of other sources of bias, like non-random mating, has been mostly evaluated using simulated data. Empirical comparisons of MR estimators in such scenarios have yet to be conducted. Pleiotropy and non-random mating have been shown to account equally for the genetic correlation between height and educational attainment. Previous studies probing the causal nature of this association have produced conflicting results. Methods: We estimated the causal effect of height on educational attainment in various MR models, including the MR-Egger and the MR-Direction of Causation (MR-DoC) models that correct for, or explicitly model, horizontal pleiotropy. Results: We reproduced the weak but positive association between height and education in the Netherlands Twin Register sample (P= 3.9 × 10–6). All MR analyses suggested that height has a robust, albeit small, causal effect on education. We showed via simulations that potential assortment for height and education had no effect on the causal parameter in the MR-DoC model. With the pleiotropic effect freely estimated, MR-DoC yielded a null finding. Conclusions: Non-random mating may have a bearing on the results of MR studies based on unrelated individuals. Family data enable tests of causal relationships to be conducted more rigorously, and are recommended to triangulate results of MR studies assessing pairs of traits leading to non-random mate selection.

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/ije/dyaa013

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • Population stratification, dynastic effects and assortative mating all induce bias by creating an artefactual relation at the population level between the genetic variants and the outcome, violating the second IV condition.

    “However, population stratification, dynastic effects and assortative mating all induce bias by creating an artefactual relation at the population level between the genetic variants and the outcome, violating the second IV condition.65,163–166”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [163]

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. [17]Minică CC, Dolan CV, Boomsma DI, de Geus E, Neale MC. Extending causality tests with genetic instruments: an integration of Mendelian randomization with the classical twin design. Behav Genet 2018; 48: 337– 49. 29882082 PMC6028857
  2. [31]Vogl TS. Education and health in developing economies. In: Encyclopedia of Health Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012, pp. 246–9.
  3. [63]Frankham R. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics 4th edn (Falconer DS, Trudy FC, Longman M, eds). New York, NY: Elsevier Current Trends, 1996.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Minică, C. C., Boomsma, D. I., Dolan, C. V., de Geus, E., & Neale, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Department of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Minică, Camelia C
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2020-03-10
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
1185-1193
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W3012503364
Cited by
23
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA-018673)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, assortative mating, horizontal pleiotropy, MR-Egger, height, educational attainment, genetic correlation, causal inference, family data, twin registry
MeSH terms
Humans, Netherlands, Genetic Variation, 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