Erratum: An examination of multivariable Mendelian randomization in the single-sample and two-sample summary data settings (International Journal of Epidemiology (2019) 48 (713-727) DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy262);An examination of multivariable Mendelian randomization in the single-sample and two-sample summary data settings

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 713-727

  Sanderson, Eleanor ^a   Davey Smith, George ^a   Windmeijer, Frank ^a   Bowden, Jack ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cochran's Q statistic; instrument strength; instrument validity; Mendelian randomization; multivariable Mendelian randomization; two sample Mendelian randomization

Indexed keywords

BODY MASS; COGNITION; DATABASE; EDUCATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC VARIATION; SAMPLING;

ARTICLE; BIOBANK; BODY MASS; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SIMULATION; VALIDITY; ADULT; AGED; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL;

UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; AGED; BODY MASS INDEX; COGNITION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; MALE; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS;

EID: 85072057266     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/IJE/DYAA101     Document Type: Erratum

References (47)

1. Bowden J, Smith GD, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:512-25.
2. Burgess S, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Re: 'Multivariable Mendelian randomization: the use of pleiotropic genetic variants to estimate causal effects'. Am J Epidemiol 2015;181:290-91.
3. Davidson R, MacKinnon JG. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford, UK: OUP Catalogue, 1993.
4. Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. USA: MIT Press, 2010.
5. Thompson John R, Minelli C, Del Greco MF. Mendelian randomization using public data from genetic consortia. Int J Biostat 2016;12.
6. Wald A. The fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Ann Math Stat 1940;11:284-300.
7. Burgess S, Bowden J. Integrating Summarized Data from Multiple Genetic Variants in Mendelian Randomization: Bias and Coverage Properties of Inverse-VarianceWeighted Methods. arXiv preprint arXiv: 151204486. 2015.
8. 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.
9. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease?. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1-22.
10. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet 2014;23:R89-98.
11. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40: 755-64.
12. Bennett DA, Holmes MV. Mendelian randomisation in cardiovascular research: an introduction for clinicians. Heart 2017; 103:1400-7.
13. Haycock PC, Burgess S, Wade KH, Bowden J, Relton C, Smith GD. Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2016;103:965-78.
14. VanderWeele TJ, Tchetgen EJT, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization. Epidemiol (Cambridge, Mass) 2014;25:427.
15. Sargan JD. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica 1958;26:393-415.
16. Windmeijer F. Two-stage least squares as minimum distance. Econom J 2018 (In press).
17. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:101-29.
18. Bowden J, Fabiola Del Greco M, Minelli C et al. Improving the Accuracy of Two-Sample Summary Data Mendelian Randomization: Moving Beyond the NOME Assumption. bioRxiv. 2017: 159442.
19. Greco M, Del F, Minelli C, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome. Stat Med 2015;34: 2926-40.
20. Bowden J, Del Greco MF, Minelli C, Davey Smith G, Sheehan N, Thompson J. A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization. Stat Med 2017;36:1783-802.
21. Burgess S, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods. Stat Med 2016;35:1880-906.
22. Burgess S, Butterworth AS, Thompson JR. Beyond Mendelian randomization: how to interpret evidence of shared genetic predictors. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:208-16.
23. Swanson SA, Labrecque J, Hernán MA. Causal null hypotheses of sustained treatment strategies: what can be tested with an instrumental variable. Eur J Epidemiol 2018;33:1-6.
24. Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res 2007;16:309-30.
25. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42:1134-44.
26. Burgess S, Thompson DJ, Rees JMB, Day FR, Perry JR, Ong KK. Dissecting causal pathways using Mendelian randomization with summarized genetic data: application to age at menarche and risk of breast cancer. Genetics 2017;207:481-7.
27. Relton CL, Davey Smith G. Two-step epigenetic Mendelian randomization: a strategy for establishing the causal role of epigenetic processes in pathways to disease. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:161-76.
28. Munafo MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM, Davey Smith G. Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations. Int J Epidemiol 2017;47:226-35.
29. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004;15:615-25.
30. Bareinboim E, Tian J, Pearl J. Recovering from Selection Bias in Causal and Statistical Inference. In Proceedings of the Twenty Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, USA, 2014.
31. Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2016;113:7345-52.
32. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream? Epidemiology 2006;17:360-72.
33. Sanderson E, Windmeijer F. A weak instrument F-test in linear IV models with multiple endogenous variables. J Econom 2016; 190:212-21.
34. Stock J, Yogo M. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: Andrews DWK (ed). Identification and Inference for Econometric Models. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 80-108.
35. Murray MP. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. J Econ Perspect 2006;20:111-32.
36. Kang H, Zhang A, Cai TT, Small DS. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments and its application to mendelian randomization. J Am Stat Assoc 2016;111:132-44.
37. Windmeijer F, Farbmacher H, Davies N, Smith GD. On the use of the lasso for instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments. J Am Stat Assoc 2018 (In Press).
38. Windmeijer F. Testing Over-and Underidentification in Linear Models, with Applications to Dynamic Panel Data and Asset-Pricing Models. University of Bristol Department of Economics Working Paper, 2018.
39. Chandola T, Deary IJ, Blane D, Batty GD. Childhood IQ in relation to obesity and weight gain in adult life: the National Child Development (1958) Study. Int J Obes (Lond) 2006;30:1422.
40. Benson R, von Hippel PT, Lynch JL. Does more education cause lower BMI, or do lower-BMI individuals become more educated? Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Soc Sci Med 2018;211:370-7.
41. Johnson W, Kyvik KO, Skytthe A, Deary IJ, Sørensen TIA. Education modifies genetic and environmental influences on BMI. PLoS One 2011;6:e16290.
42. Spasojevic J. Chapter 9 effects of education on adult health in Sweden: results from a natural experiment. In: Slottje D and Tchernis R (ed) Current Issues Health Economics (Contributions to Economic Analysis, Volume 290), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010; pp. 179-99.
43. Collins R. What makes UK Biobank special? Lancet 2012;379: 1173-74.
44. Okbay A, Beauchamp JP, Fontana MA et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 2016;533:539.
45. Sniekers S, Stringer S, Watanabe K et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence. Nat Genet 2017;49: 1107-12.
46. Rees J, Wood A, Burgess S. Extending the MR-Egger method for multivariable Mendelian randomization to correct for both measured and unmeasured pleiotropy. Stat Med 2017;36: 4705-18.
47. Speliotes EK, Willer CJ, Berndt SI et al. Association analyses of 249, 796 individuals reveal 18 new loci associated with body mass index. Nat Genet 2010;42:937-48.