Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28944551›Full record

ArticleGenetic epidemiology2017

Mendelian randomization with fine-mapped genetic data: Choosing from large numbers of correlated instrumental variables.

Stephen Burgess, Verena Zuber, Elsa Valdes-Marquez, Benjamin B Sun, Jemma C Hopewell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

127 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 217 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Causal effects of gestational hypertension on women's health: A Mendelian randomization analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

67 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen BurgessMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5365-8760
Verena ZuberMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Elsa Valdes-MarquezClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Benjamin B SunDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jemma C HopewellClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBEuropean Bioinformatics Institute · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/14/55/30806British Heart Foundation RG/08/014/24067Medical Research Council G0700463Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/7Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 204623/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants to make causal inferences about the effect of a risk factor on an outcome. With fine-mapped genetic data, there may be hundreds of genetic variants in a single gene region any of which could be used to assess this causal relationship. However, using too many genetic variants in the analysis can lead to spurious estimates and inflated Type 1 error rates. But if only a few genetic variants are used, then the majority of the data is ignored and estimates are highly sensitive to the particular choice of variants. We propose an approach based on summarized data only (genetic association and correlation estimates) that uses principal components analysis to form instruments. This approach has desirable theoretical properties: it takes the totality of data into account and does not suffer from numerical instabilities. It also has good properties in simulation studies: it is not particularly sensitive to varying the genetic variants included in the analysis or the genetic correlation matrix, and it does not have greatly inflated Type 1 error rates. Overall, the method gives estimates that are less precise than those from variable selection approaches (such as using a conditional analysis or pruning approach to select variants), but are more robust to seemingly arbitrary choices in the variable selection step. Methods are illustrated by an example using genetic associations with testosterone for 320 genetic variants to assess the effect of sex hormone related pathways on coronary artery disease risk, in which variable selection approaches give inconsistent inferences.

Indexed as

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisModels, GeneticCoronary DiseaseGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansPrincipal Component AnalysisRisk FactorsTestosteroneTestosteroneallele scoreconditional analysiscorrelated variantsMendelian randomizationsummarized data

Identifiers

PMID28944551
PMCPMC5725678
OpenAlexW2724719188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.