Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38789826›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024

Non-linear Mendelian randomization: detection of biases using negative controls with a focus on BMI, Vitamin D and LDL cholesterol.

Fergus W Hamilton, David A Hughes, Wes Spiller, Kate Tilling, George Davey Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The rapid growth in Mendelian randomization studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Evidence triangulation in health research.European journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  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.

Fergus W HamiltonMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK. Fergus.hamilton@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9760-4059
David A HughesMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.
Wes SpillerMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.
Kate TillingMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00032/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 222894/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mendelian randomisation (MR) is an established technique in epidemiological investigation, using the principle of random allocation of genetic variants at conception to estimate the causal linear effect of an exposure on an outcome. Extensions to this technique include non-linear approaches that allow for differential effects of the exposure on the outcome depending on the level of the exposure. A widely used non-linear method is the residual approach, which estimates the causal effect within different strata of the non-genetically predicted exposure (i.e. the "residual" exposure). These "local" causal estimates are then used to make inferences about non-linear effects. Recent work has identified that this method can lead to estimates that are seriously biased, and a new method-the doubly-ranked method-has been introduced as a possibly more robust approach. In this paper, we perform negative control outcome analyses in the MR context. These are analyses with outcomes onto which the exposure should have no predicted causal effect. Using both methods we find clearly biased estimates in certain situations. We additionally examined a situation for which there are robust randomised controlled trial estimates of effects-that of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction onto myocardial infarction, where randomised trials have provided strong evidence of the shape of the relationship. The doubly-ranked method did not identify the same shape as the trial data, and for LDL-C and other lipids they generated some highly implausible findings. Therefore, we suggest there should be extensive simulation and empirical methodological examination of performance of both methods for NLMR under different conditions before further use of these methods. In the interim, use of NLMR methods needs justification, and a number of sanity checks (such as analysis of negative and positive control outcomes, sensitivity analyses excluding removal of strata at the extremes of the distribution, examination of biological plausibility and triangulation of results) should be performed.

Indexed as

BiasBody Mass IndexCholesterol, LDLMendelian Randomization AnalysisVitamin DCausalityHumansNonlinear DynamicsCholesterol, LDLVitamin DBody mass indexEpidemiologyInstrumental variableLDL-CMendelian randomisationNon-linearVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID38789826
PMCPMC11219394

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.