Cited by 387Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetics and Physical Performance

Selecting instruments for Mendelian randomization in the wake of genome-wide association studies.

Open access
Swerdlow, Daniel I, Kuchenbaecker, Karoline B, Shah, Sonia, Sofat, Reecha, Holmes, Michael V, White, Jon, Mindell, Jennifer S, Kivimaki, Mika +4 more·2016·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) studies typically assess the pathogenic relevance of environmental exposures or disease biomarkers, using genetic variants that instrument these exposures. The approach is gaining popularity-our systematic review reveals a greater than 10-fold increase in MR studies published between 2004 and 2015. When the MR paradigm was first proposed, few biomarker- or exposure-related genetic variants were known, most having been identified by candidate gene studies. However, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are now providing a rich source of potential instruments for MR analysis. Many early reviews covering the concept, applications and analytical aspects of the MR technique preceded the surge in GWAS, and thus the question of how best to select instruments for MR studies from the now extensive pool of available variants has received insufficient attention. Here we focus on the most common category of MR studies-those concerning disease biomarkers. We consider how the selection of instruments for MR analysis from GWAS requires consideration of: the assumptions underlying the MR approach; the biology of the biomarker; the genome-wide distribution, frequency and effect size of biomarker-associated variants (the genetic architecture); and the specificity of the genetic associations. Based on this, we develop guidance that may help investigators to plan and readers interpret MR studies.

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/dyw088

Cites

127 of 127 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
Swerdlow, D. I., Kuchenbaecker, K. B., Shah, S., Sofat, R., Holmes, M. V., White, J., Mindell, J. S., Kivimaki, M., Brunner, E. J., Whittaker, J. C., Casas, J. P., & Hingorani, A. D.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Swerdlow, Daniel I
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2016-06-24
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
1600-1616
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2462634178
Cited by
387
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (613598, NF-SI-0515-10091, ACF-2015-21-003)
  • British Heart Foundation (G0802432, HL036310, 613598, K013351, RG/10/12/28456, FS/07/011, PG/11/63/29011, RG/13/2/30098)
  • University College London
  • NordForsk (613598, K013351)
  • Medical Research Council (HL036310, MR/K013351/1, MR/K006584/1, K013351, 613598, G0802432)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG034454, R01AG034454, HL036310, K013351, 613598)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL036310)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Physical Performance
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, instrument selection, genome-wide association study, disease biomarkers, genetic variants, genetic architecture, genetic specificity
MeSH terms
Humans, Genetic Variation, Biomarkers, Causality, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, 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