Cited by 48Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesGenetics and Physical Performance

Interpreting Mendelian-randomization estimates of the effects of categorical exposures such as disease status and educational attainment

Open access
Howe, Laurence J, Tudball, Matthew, Davey Smith, George, Davies, Neil M·2022·International Journal of Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Mendelian randomization has been previously used to estimate the effects of binary and ordinal categorical exposures—e.g. Type 2 diabetes or educational attainment defined by qualification—on outcomes. Binary and categorical phenotypes can be modelled in terms of liability—an underlying latent continuous variable with liability thresholds separating individuals into categories. Genetic variants influence an individual’s categorical exposure via their effects on liability, thus Mendelian-randomization analyses with categorical exposures will capture effects of liability that act independently of exposure category. Methods and results: We discuss how groups in which the categorical exposure is invariant can be used to detect liability effects acting independently of exposure category. For example, associations between an adult educational-attainment polygenic score (PGS) and body mass index measured before the minimum school leaving age (e.g. age 10 years), cannot indicate the effects of years in full-time education on this outcome. Using UK Biobank data, we show that a higher educational-attainment PGS is strongly associated with lower smoking initiation and higher odds of glasses use at age 15 years. These associations were replicated in sibling models. An orthogonal approach using the raising of the school leaving age (ROSLA) policy change found that individuals who chose to remain in education to age 16 years before the reform likely had higher liability to educational attainment than those who were compelled to remain in education to age 16 years after the reform, and had higher income, lower pack-years of smoking, higher odds of glasses use and lower deprivation in adulthood. These results suggest that liability to educational attainment is associated with health and social outcomes independently of years in full-time education. Conclusions: Mendelian-randomization studies with non-continuous exposures should be interpreted in terms of liability, which may affect the outcome via changes in exposure category and/or independently.

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/dyab208

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • In two sample MR studies with exposure samples containing only a small number of participants who have experienced the exposure, the causal effect estimate reflects the effects of the genetic liability to the exposure rather than the exposure itself.

    “For example, when two sample MR studies are carried out in exposure samples that contain only a small number of participants who have experienced the exposure in question, it would be misleading to interpret the effects as being those of the exposure itself. Instead, the causal effect estimate should be interpreted as reflecting the effects of the genetic liability to the exposure.115 116”

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
Howe, L. J., Tudball, M., Davey Smith, G., & Davies, N. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Howe, Laurence J
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2021-09-27
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
948-957
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W3203077784
Cited by
48
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
FWCI
4.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • UK Biobank resource under Application (8786)
  • The Medical Research Council (MRC) and the University of Bristol
  • MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/1)
  • Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC) Future Research Leaders grant (ES/N000757/1)
  • Norwegian Research Council (295989)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Physical Performance
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, liability model, educational attainment, polygenic risk score, school leaving age, smoking initiation, body mass index
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Educational Status, Humans, Random Allocation, Multifactorial Inheritance, 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