Cited by 923Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference

Open access
Didelez, Vanessa, Sheehan, Nuala·2007·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

In epidemiological research, the causal effect of a modifiable phenotype or exposure on a disease is often of public health interest. Randomized controlled trials to investigate this effect are not always possible and inferences based on observational data can be confounded. However, if we know of a gene closely linked to the phenotype without direct effect on the disease, it can often be reasonably assumed that the gene is not itself associated with any confounding factors — a phenomenon called Mendelian randomization. These properties define an instrumental variable and allow estimation of the causal effect, despite the confounding, under certain model restrictions. In this paper, we present a formal framework for causal inference based on Mendelian randomization and suggest using directed acyclic graphs to check model assumptions by visual inspection. This framework allows us to address limitations of the Mendelian randomization technique that have often been overlooked in the medical literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0962280206077743

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The instrumental variable assumptions are: association with the exposure of interest; lack of association with any confounder of the exposure-outcome relationship, including unmeasured confounders; and lack of conditional association with the outcome given the exposure and all confounders.

    “These variants must satisfy the assumptions of an instrumental variable (IV): association with the exposure of interest; lack of association with any confounder of the exposure–outcome relationship (including those that are unmeasured); and lack of conditional association with the outcome given the exposure and all the confounders.2”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Didelez, V., & Sheehan, N.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Sheehan, Nuala
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2007-08
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
309-330
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2129465958
Cited by
923
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 149 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 30
FWCI
17.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
Leverhulme Trust
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, instrumental variables, causal inference, confounding, directed acyclic graphs, model assumptions, genetic variants, observational data, causal effect estimation
MeSH terms
Animals, Epidemiologic Methods, Epidemiology, Humans, Random Allocation, Causality

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