PreprintCited by 59Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Interpretation of mendelian randomization using one measure of an exposure that varies over time

Open access
Morris, Tim T, Heron, Jon, Sanderson, Eleanor, Smith, George Davey, Tilling, Kate·2021·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Background: Mendelian randomization (MR) is a powerful tool through which the causal effects of modifiable exposures on outcomes can be estimated from observational data. Most exposures vary throughout the life course, but MR is commonly applied to one measurement of an exposure (e.g., weight measured once between ages 40 and 60). It has been argued that MR provides biased causal effect estimates when applied to one measure of an exposure that varies over time. Methods: We propose an approach that emphasises the liability that causes the entire exposure trajectory. We demonstrate this approach using simulations and an applied example. Results: We show that rather than estimating the direct or total causal effect of changing the exposure value at a given time, MR estimates the causal effect of changing the liability as induced by a specific genotype that gives rise to the exposure at that time. As such, results from MR conducted at different time points are expected to differ (unless the liability of exposure is constant over time), as we demonstrate by estimating the effect of BMI measured at different ages on systolic blood pressure. Conclusions: Practitioners should not interpret MR results as timepoint-specific direct or total causal effects, but as the effect of changing the liability that causes the entire exposure trajectory. Estimates of how the effects of a genetic variant on an exposure vary over time are needed to interpret timepoint-specific causal effects.

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 · 10.1101/2021.11.18.21266515

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • RCTs estimate the effect of a particular intervention or treatment over the timeframe of the study, whereas MR estimates the lifetime effects.

    “The above example highlights an important difference between RCTs and MR: RCTs estimate the effect of a particular intervention or treatment over the timeframe of the study, whereas MR estimates the lifetime effects.21”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

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
Morris, T. T., Heron, J., Sanderson, E., Smith, G. D., & Tilling, K.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Morris, Tim T
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-11-21
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
1899-1909
ISSN
0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285733940
Cited by
58
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
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)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00,011/3)
  • Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing, University of California Berkeley
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/3, MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011)
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
Mendelian randomization, exposure trajectories, time-varying exposure, liability model, causal effect estimation, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, genetic variants
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Pressure, Humans, Middle Aged, Causality, Body Mass Index, 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