The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Robust methods in Mendelian randomization via penalization of heterogeneous causal estimates
Open accessAbstract
Methods have been developed for Mendelian randomization that can obtain consistent causal estimates under weaker assumptions than the standard instrumental variable assumptions. The median-based estimator and MR-Egger are examples of such methods. However, these methods can be sensitive to genetic variants with heterogeneous causal estimates. Such heterogeneity may arise from over-dispersion in the causal estimates, or specific variants with outlying causal estimates. In this paper, we develop three extensions to robust methods for Mendelian randomization with summarized data: 1) robust regression (MM-estimation); 2) penalized weights; and 3) Lasso penalization. Methods using these approaches are considered in two applied examples: one where there is evidence of over-dispersion in the causal estimates (the causal effect of body mass index on schizophrenia risk), and the other containing outliers (the causal effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on Alzheimer's disease risk). Through an extensive simulation study, we demonstrate that robust regression applied to the inverse-variance weighted method with penalized weights is a worthwhile additional sensitivity analysis for Mendelian randomization to provide robustness to variants with outlying causal estimates. The results from the applied examples and simulation study highlight the importance of using methods that make different assumptions to assess the robustness of findings from Mendelian randomization investigations with multiple genetic variants.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., & Burgess, S. (2015) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv080 · Cited by 9,816
Self-citationBowden, J., Davey Smith, G., Haycock, P. C., & Burgess, S. (2016) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.21965 · Cited by 8,922
Self-citationVerbanck, M., Chen, C.-Y., Neale, B., & Do, R. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0099-7 · Cited by 8,591
Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci
Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13595 · Cited by 7,577
Davey Smith, G., & Ebrahim, S. (2003) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyg070 · Cited by 5,882
Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method.
Burgess, S., & Thompson, S. G. (2017) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-017-0255-x · Cited by 4,571
Self-citationGenetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology
Study, T. L. C., Locke, A. E., The ADIPOGen Consortium, The AGEN-BMI Working Group, The CARDIOGRAMplusC4D Consortium, The CKDGen Consortium, The, G. L. G. C., The, I. C. B. P., The MAGIC Investigators, The MuTHER Consortium, et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14177 · Cited by 4,534
Self-citationMeta-Analysis of 74,046 Individuals Identifies 11 New Susceptibility Loci for Alzheimer’s Disease
(EADI), E. A. D. I., Lambert, J.-C., (GERAD), G. A. E. R. I. A. D., Alzheimer's Disease Genetic Consortium (ADGC), (CHARGE), C. F. H. A. A. R. I. G. E., Ibrahim-Verbaas, C. A., Harold, D., Naj, A. C., Sims, R., Bellenguez, C., et al. (2013) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.2802 · Cited by 4,336
EPIC- InterAct Consortium, Burgess, S., Scott, R. A., Timpson, N. J., Davey Smith, G., & Thompson, S. G. (2015) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0011-z · Cited by 1,803
Self-citationDetecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome
Greco M, F. D., Minelli, C., Sheehan, N. A., & Thompson, J. R. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6522 · Cited by 1,700
Cited by
Sanderson, E., Glymour, M. M., Holmes, M. V., Kang, H., Morrison, J., Munafò, M. R., Palmer, T., Schooling, C. M., Wallace, C., Zhao, Q., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00092-5 · Cited by 2,229
Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations
Burgess, S., Davey Smith, G., Davies, N. M., Dudbridge, F., Gill, D., Glymour, M. M., Hartwig, F. P., Holmes, M. V., Minelli, C., Relton, C. L., et al. (2020) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15555.2 · Cited by 1,273
Self-citationBjörnson, E., Adiels, M., Taskinen, M.-R., Burgess, S., Rawshani, A., Borén, J., & Packard, C. J. (2023) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad337 · Cited by 183
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rees, J. M. B., Wood, A. M., Dudbridge, F., & Burgess, S.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2019-09-23
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e0222362
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2977182596
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 5.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
