Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29882082›Full record

ArticleBehavior genetics2018

Extending Causality Tests with Genetic Instruments: An Integration of Mendelian Randomization with the Classical Twin Design.

Camelia C Minică, Conor V Dolan, Dorret I Boomsma, Eco de Geus, Michael C Neale

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Heritability of Alzheimer's disease plasma biomarkers: A nuclear twin family design.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.

Camelia C MinicăDepartment of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Transitorium 2B03, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. camelia.minica@vu.nl.
Conor V DolanDepartment of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Transitorium 2B03, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dorret I BoomsmaDepartment of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Transitorium 2B03, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eco de GeusDepartment of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Transitorium 2B03, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael C NealeDepartment of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Transitorium 2B03, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Psychometric and Genetic Assessments of Substance UseR37DA018673 · NIDA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI NEALE, MICHAEL CHURTON · 2005 to 2014
$3.7M
Psychometric and Genetic Assessments of Substance UseR01DA018673 · NIDA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI NEALE, MICHAEL CHURTON · 2004 to 2019
$2.3M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA018673NIDA NIH HHS R37 DA018673
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although experimental studies are regarded as the method of choice for determining causal influences, these are not always practical or ethical to answer vital questions in health and social research (e.g., one cannot assign individuals to a "childhood trauma condition" in studying the causal effects of childhood trauma on depression). Key to solving such questions are observational studies. Mendelian Randomization (MR) is an influential method to establish causality in observational studies. MR uses genetic variants to test causal relationships between exposures/risk factors and outcomes such as physical or mental health. Yet, individual genetic variants have small effects, and so, when used as instrumental variables, render MR liable to weak instrument bias. Polygenic scores have the advantage of larger effects, but may be characterized by horizontal pleiotropy, which violates a central assumption of MR. We developed the MR-DoC twin model by integrating MR with the Direction of Causation twin model. This model allows us to test pleiotropy directly. We considered the issue of parameter identification, and given identification, we conducted extensive power calculations. MR-DoC allows one to test causal hypotheses and to obtain unbiased estimates of the causal effect given pleiotropic instruments, while controlling for genetic and environmental influences common to the outcome and exposure. Furthermore, the approach allows one to employ strong instrumental variables in the form of polygenic scores, guarding against weak instrument bias, and increasing the power to detect causal effects of exposures on potential outcomes. Beside allowing to test pleiotropy directly, incorporating in MR data collected from relatives provide additional within-family data that resolve additional assumptions like random mating, the absence of the gene-environment interaction/covariance, no dyadic effects. Our approach will enhance and extend MR's range of applications, and increase the value of the large cohorts collected at twin/family registries as they correctly detect causation and estimate effect sizes even in the presence of pleiotropy.

Indexed as

CausalityModels, GeneticGene-Environment InteractionGenetic PleiotropyGenetic VariationHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisMonte Carlo MethodMultifactorial InheritanceTwins, DizygoticTwins, MonozygoticTwin Studies as TopicCausalityMendelian randomizationPleiotropyTwin design

Identifiers

PMID29882082
PMCPMC6028857
OpenAlexW2951264395

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.