|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference
Vanessa Didelez
Departments of Statistical Science, University College London, UK
Nuala Sheehan
Departments of Health Sciences and Genetics, University of Leicester, UK, nas11{at}le.ac.uk
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.
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Vol. 16, No. 4,
309-330 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0962280206077743

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Bochud, F. Marquant, P.-M. Marques-Vidal, P. Vollenweider, J. S. Beckmann, V. Mooser, F. Paccaud, and V. Rousson
Association between C-Reactive Protein and Adiposity in Women
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.,
October 1, 2009;
94(10):
3969 - 3977.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. H. Shah and J. A. de Lemos
Biomarkers and Cardiovascular Disease: Determining Causality and Quantifying Contribution to Risk Assessment
JAMA,
July 1, 2009;
302(1):
92 - 93.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. M. Harbord, D. A. Lawlor, G. D. Smith, M. R. Bubb, H. Morita, R. Nagai, J. Zacho, A. Tybjaerg-Hansen, and B. G. Nordestgaard
Genetically Elevated C-Reactive Protein and Vascular Disease
N. Engl. J. Med.,
February 26, 2009;
360(9):
933 - 935.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. R Burton, A. L Hansell, I. Fortier, T. A Manolio, M. J Khoury, J. Little, and P. Elliott
Size matters: just how big is BIG?: Quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology
Int. J. Epidemiol.,
February 1, 2009;
38(1):
263 - 273.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Bochud
On the use of Mendelian randomization to infer causality in observational epidemiology
Eur. Heart J.,
October 2, 2008;
29(20):
2456 - 2457.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. M Palmer, J. R Thompson, M. D Tobin, N. A Sheehan, and P. R Burton
Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses
Int. J. Epidemiol.,
October 1, 2008;
37(5):
1161 - 1168.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|