Counterfactual causation: Avoiding the downsides of a powerful, widely applicable but potentially fallible technique

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1717-1726

  Hartwig, Fernando Pires ^a,b   Davies, Neil Martin ^b   Hemani, Gibran ^b   Smith, George Davey ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PELOTAS   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; EDITORIAL; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; HUMAN; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SAMPLE (STATISTICS); METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85017151850     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx028     Document Type: Editorial

References (37)

1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 0Mendelian randomization0: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1-22.
2. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet 2014;23:R89-98.
3. Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008;27:1133-63.
4. Lawlor DA. Commentary: Two-sample Mendelian randomization: opportunities and challenges. Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:908-15.
5. Gao C, Patel CJ, Michailidou K et al. Mendelian randomization study of adiposity-related traits and risk of breast, ovarian, prostate, lung and colorectal cancer. Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:896-908.
6. Corbin LJ, Richmond RC, Wade KH et al. BMI as a Modifiable Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes: Refining and Understanding Causal Estimates Using Mendelian Randomization. Diabetes 2016;65:3002-07.
7. Hamad R, Walter S, Rehkopf DH. Telomere length and health outcomes: A two-sample genetic instrumental variables analysis. Exp Gerontol 2016;82:88-94.
8. Angrist JD, Krueger AB. The Effect of Age at School Entry on Educational Attainment: An Application of Instrumental Variables with Moments from Two Samples. J Am Stat Assoc 1992;87:328-36.
9. Inoue A, Solon G. Two-Sample Instrumental Variables Estimators. Rev Econ Stat 2010;92:557-61.
10. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013;37:658-65.
11. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:512-25.
12. Klerk M, Verhoef P, Clarke R, Blom HJ, Kok FJ, Schouten EG. MTHFR 677C→T polymorphism and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2002;28:2023-31.
13. Pierce BL, Burgess S. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am J Epidemiol 2013;178:1177-84.
14. Hartwig FP, Davies NM. Why internal weights should be avoided (not only) in MR-Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:1676-78.
15. Fortier I, Raina P, Van den Heuvel ER et al. Maelstrom Research guidelines for rigorous retrospective data harmonization. Int J Epidemiol 2016, Jun 6. pii: dyw075. [Epub ahead of print.]
16. Locke AE, Kahali B, Berndt SI et al. Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology. Nature 2015;518:197-206.
17. Shungin D, Winkler TW, Croteau-Chonka DC et al. New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution. Nature 2015;518:187-96.
18. Wensley F, Gao P, Burgess S et al. Association between C reactive protein and coronary heart disease: mendelian randomization analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ 2011;342:d548.
19. Verzilli C, Shah T, Casas JP et al. Bayesian meta-analysis of genetic association studies with different sets of markers. Am J Hum Genet 2008;82:859-72.
20. Swerdlow DI, Kuchenbaecker KB, Shah S et al. Selecting instruments for Mendelian randomization in the wake of genomewide association studies. Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:1600-16.
21. Dehghan A, Dupuis J, Barbalic M et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in>80 000 subjects identifies multiple loci for C-reactive protein levels. Circulation 2011;123:731-38.
22. Okbay A, Beauchamp JP, Fontana MA et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 2016;533:539-42.
23. Ference BA, Julius S, Mahajan N, Levy PD, Williams KA Sr, Flack JM. Clinical effect of naturally random allocation to lower systolic blood pressure beginning before the development of hypertension. Hypertension 2014;63:1182-88.
24. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Mendelian Randomization: Methods for Using Genetic Variants in Causal Estimation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015.
25. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33: 30-42.
26. Frazer KA, Ballinger DG, Cox DR et al. A second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs. Nature 2007;449:851-61.
27. Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 2015;526:68-74.
28. Marchini J, Howie B. Genotype imputation for genome-wide association studies. Nat Rev Genet 2010;11:499-511.
29. Inoshita M, Numata S, Tajima A et al. A significant causal association between C-reactive protein levels and schizophrenia. Sci Rep 2016;6:26105.
30. Prins BP, Abbasi A, Wong A et al. Investigating the Causal Relationship of C-Reactive Protein with 32 Complex Somatic and Psychiatric Outcomes: A Large-Scale Cross-Consortium Mendelian Randomization Study. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1001976.
31. Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Biological insights from 108 schizophreniaassociated genetic loci. Nature 2014;511:421-27.
32. Dastani Z, Hivert MF, Timpson N et al. Novel loci for adiponectin levels and their influence on type 2 diabetes and metabolic traits: a multi-ethnic meta-analysis of 45,891 individuals. PLoS Genet 2012;8:e1002607.
33. Haycock PC, Burgess S, Wade KH, Bowden J, Relton C, Davey Smith G. Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2016;103:965-78.
34. Hemani G, Zheng J, Wade KH et al. MR-Base: a platform for systematic causal inference across the phenome using billions of genetic associations. bioRxiv 2016.
35. Seife C. For Sale: 'Your Name Here' in a Prestigious Science Journal. Scientific American 2014, 17 December.
36. Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q2016;94:485-514.
37. Niu W, Gu M. Adding Mendelian randomization to a metaanalysis - a burgeoning opportunity. Tumour Biol 2016;37: 1527-29.