Cited by 115Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The use of negative control outcomes in Mendelian randomization to detect potential population stratification

Open access
Sanderson, Eleanor, Richardson, Tom G, Hemani, Gibran, Davey Smith, George·2021·International Journal of Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

A key assumption of Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis is that there is no association between the genetic variants used as instruments and the outcome other than through the exposure of interest. One way in which this assumption can be violated is through population stratification, which can introduce confounding of the relationship between the genetic variants and the outcome and so induce an association between them. Negative control outcomes are increasingly used to detect unobserved confounding in observational epidemiological studies. Here we consider the use of negative control outcomes in MR studies to detect confounding of the genetic variants and the exposure or outcome. As a negative control outcome in an MR study, we propose the use of phenotypes which are determined before the exposure and outcome but which are likely to be subject to the same confounding as the exposure or outcome of interest. We illustrate our method with a two-sample MR analysis of a preselected set of exposures on self-reported tanning ability and hair colour. Our results show that, of the 33 exposures considered, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of adiposity and education-related traits are likely to be subject to population stratification that is not controlled for through adjustment, and so any MR study including these traits may be subject to bias that cannot be identified through standard pleiotropy robust methods. Negative control outcomes should therefore be used regularly in MR studies to detect potential population stratification in the data used.

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/dyaa288

Cites

54 of 54 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?

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
Sanderson, E., Richardson, T. G., Hemani, G., & Davey Smith, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Corresponding author
Sanderson, Eleanor
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2021-02-11
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
1350-1361
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W3123863341
Cited by
115
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Integrative Epidemiology Unit which is funded by the University of Bristol and the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1)
  • UKRI Innovation Research Fellow (MR/S003886/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
negative control outcomes, population stratification, Mendelian randomization, pleiotropy, unmeasured confounding, assessment validity, tanning ability, hair color, adiposity, two-sample Mendelian randomization
MeSH terms
Humans, Phenotype, Bias, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Adiposity, Genome-Wide Association Study, Mendelian Randomization Analysis

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