Cited by 1,085Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

An examination of multivariable Mendelian randomization in the single-sample and two-sample summary data settings

Open access
Sanderson, Eleanor, Davey Smith, George, Windmeijer, Frank, Bowden, Jack·2019·International Journal of Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Mendelian randomization (MR) is a powerful tool in epidemiology that can be used to estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome in the presence of unobserved confounding, by utilizing genetic variants that are instrumental variables (IVs) for the exposure. This has been extended to multivariable MR (MVMR) to estimate the effect of two or more exposures on an outcome. Methods and results: We use simulations and theory to clarify the interpretation of estimated effects in a MVMR analysis under a range of underlying scenarios, where a secondary exposure acts variously as a confounder, a mediator, a pleiotropic pathway and a collider. We then describe how instrument strength and validity can be assessed for an MVMR analysis in the single-sample setting, and develop tests to assess these assumptions in the popular two-sample summary data setting. We illustrate our methods using data from UK Biobank to estimate the effect of education and cognitive ability on body mass index. Conclusion: MVMR analysis consistently estimates the direct causal effect of an exposure, or exposures, of interest and provides a powerful tool for determining causal effects in a wide range of scenarios with either individual- or summary-level data.

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/dyy262

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • MR provides credible information on causation that can inform public health policies for environmental exposures such as alcohol.

    “In this case, a trial would be challenging and/or unethical to conduct, despite previous attempts, however MR provides credible information on causation that can inform public health policies. 59 60”
  • Mendelian randomization analyses for investigating drug targets often use variants in a single gene region, typically the gene that encodes the protein target under investigation.

    “Mendelian randomization analyses for investigating drug targets often use variants in a single gene region, typically the gene that encodes the protein target under investigation 57, 58 .”

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: 2

  1. [4]Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data USA: MIT Press, 2010.
  2. [7]Burgess S, Bowden J. Integrating Summarized Data from Multiple Genetic Variants in Mendelian Randomization: Bias and Coverage Properties of Inverse-Variance Weighted Methods arXiv preprint arXiv: 151204486. 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sanderson, E., Davey Smith, G., Windmeijer, F., & Bowden, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Corresponding author
Sanderson, Eleanor
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2018-12-10
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
713-727
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2949275660
Cited by
1,085
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 114 · 2025: 172 · 2024: 273 · 2023: 163 · 2022: 141 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 3
FWCI
33.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • UK Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit
  • University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/2, MC_UU_00011/1)
  • UK Biobank Resource (8786)
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
multivariable Mendelian randomization, causal inference, unmeasured confounding, mediation, pleiotropy, collider bias, assessment validity, instrument strength, cognitive ability, body mass index
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cognition, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Body Mass Index, Multivariate Analysis, Least-Squares Analysis, Models, Econometric, 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