Cited by 1,289Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetics and Physical Performance

Using multiple genetic variants as instrumental variables for modifiable risk factors

Open access
Palmer, Tom M, Lawlor, Debbie A, Harbord, Roger M, Sheehan, Nuala A, Tobias, Jon H, Timpson, Nicholas J, Smith, George Davey, Sterne, Jonathan AC·2012·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

Mendelian randomisation analyses use genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to estimate causal effects of modifiable risk factors on disease outcomes. Genetic variants typically explain a small proportion of the variability in risk factors; hence Mendelian randomisation analyses can require large sample sizes. However, an increasing number of genetic variants have been found to be robustly associated with disease-related outcomes in genome-wide association studies. Use of multiple instruments can improve the precision of IV estimates, and also permit examination of underlying IV assumptions. We discuss the use of multiple genetic variants in Mendelian randomisation analyses with continuous outcome variables where all relationships are assumed to be linear. We describe possible violations of IV assumptions, and how multiple instrument analyses can be used to identify them. We present an example using four adiposity-associated genetic variants as IVs for the causal effect of fat mass on bone density, using data on 5509 children enrolled in the ALSPAC birth cohort study. We also use simulation studies to examine the effect of different sets of IVs on precision and bias. When each instrument independently explains variability in the risk factor, use of multiple instruments increases the precision of IV estimates. However, inclusion of weak instruments could increase finite sample bias. Missing data on multiple genetic variants can diminish the available sample size, compared with single instrument analyses. In simulations with additive genotype-risk factor effects, IV estimates using a weighted allele score had similar properties to estimates using multiple instruments. Under the correct conditions, multiple instrument analyses are a promising approach for Mendelian randomisation studies. Further research is required into multiple imputation methods to address missing data issues in IV estimation.

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 · 10.1177/0962280210394459

Cites

75 of 75 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?

  • All three SNPs are strong instruments for MR as measured by F-statistics > 10.

    “All three of these SNPs have previously been shown to be strong instruments for MR analysis as measured by F-statistics > 10 [8,18]”

    From Associations of genetically determined iron status across the phenome: A mendelian randomization study (2019) · cites this paper as [18]

    Table 3 (§2.4) reports individual first-stage F-statistics above 10 for only two of the four SNPs studied: FTO (39.83) and MC4R (17.85). The text in §2.4 explicitly calls TMEM18 and GNPDA2 weak instruments because their F-statistics are below 10. The source therefore does not show three individual SNPs to be strong by this criterion. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretation of results from MR studies relies on four conditions.

    “Interpretation of results from MR studies relies on four conditions.12,24”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

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

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Palmer, T. M., Lawlor, D. A., Harbord, R. M., Sheehan, N. A., Tobias, J. H., Timpson, N. J., Smith, G. D., & Sterne, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Corresponding author
Palmer, Tom M
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2011-01-07
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
223-242
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2151096860
Cited by
1,289
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 92 · 2025: 240 · 2024: 394 · 2023: 164 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
FWCI
11.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (G0600705, 092731)
  • University of Bristol (G0600705)
  • Medical Research Council (G0600705)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/E00234X/1)
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, modifiable risk factors, weak instruments, finite-sample bias, fat mass, bone mineral density, children, causal effect estimation, continuous outcomes
MeSH terms
Female, Genotype, Humans, Male, Risk Factors, Genetic Variation, 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