Cited by 125Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetics and Physical Performance

Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian randomization.

Open access
van Kippersluis, Hans, Rietveld, Cornelius A·2018·International Journal of Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Background The potential of Mendelian Randomization studies is rapidly expanding due to (i) the growing power of GWAS meta-analyses to detect genetic variants associated with several exposures, and (ii) the increasing availability of these genetic variants in large-scale surveys. However, without a proper biological understanding of the pleiotropic working of genetic variants, a fundamental assumption of Mendelian Randomization (the exclusion restriction) can always be contested. Methods We build upon and synthesize recent advances in the econometric literature on instrumental variables (IV) estimation that test and relax the exclusion restriction. Our Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian Randomization (PRMR) method first estimates the degree of pleiotropy, and in turn corrects for it. If a sample exists for which the genetic variants do not affect the exposure, and pleiotropic effects are homogenous, PRMR obtains unbiased estimates of causal effects in case of pleiotropy. Results Simulations show that existing MR methods produce biased estimators for realistic forms of pleiotropy. Under the aforementioned assumptions, PRMR produces unbiased estimators. We illustrate the practical use of PRMR by estimating the causal effect of (i) cigarettes smoked per day on Body Mass Index (BMI); (ii) prostate cancer on self-reported health, and (iii) educational attainment on BMI in the UK Biobank data. Conclusions PRMR allows for instrumental variables that violate the exclusion restriction due to pleiotropy, and corrects for pleiotropy in the estimation of the causal effect. If the degree of pleiotropy is unknown, PRMR can still be used as a sensitivity analysis. Key messages If genetic variants have pleiotropic effects, causal estimates of Mendelian Randomization studies will be biased. Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian Randomization (PRMR) produces unbiased causal estimates in case (i) a subsample can be identified for which the genetic variants do not affect the exposure, and (ii) pleiotropic effects are homogenous. If such a subsample does not exist, PRMR can still routinely be reported as a sensitivity analysis in any MR analysis. If pleiotropic effects are not homogenous, PRMR can be used as an informal test to gauge the exclusion restriction.

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/dyx002

Cites

73 of 73 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?

  • Any source of instrument invalidity can be expressed as algebraically equivalent to bias from pleiotropy.

    “Although robust methods typically use the term ‘pleiotropy’, any source of instrument invalidity can be expressed as algebraically equivalent to bias from pleiotropy 87”

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. Devereux PJ, Black SE, Salvanes KG. From the cradle to the labor market? The effect of birth weight. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2007;122(1),409-439.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Kippersluis, H., & Rietveld, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Tinbergen Institute (NL)
Corresponding author
Rietveld, Cornelius A
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2017-02-22
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
1279-1288
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2952904845
Cited by
125
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (016-145-082, 016-165-004)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG037398)
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
pleiotropy, exclusion restriction, instrumental variables, causal effect estimation, sensitivity analysis, tobacco smoke exposure, body mass index, prostate cancer, educational attainment, self-reported health, UK Biobank
MeSH terms
Disease, Humans, Genetic Variation, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, 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