MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) at the University of Bristol, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK.
MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) at the University of Bristol, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK.
Econ Hum Biol. 2014 Mar;13(100):99-106. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2013.12.002. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
Mendelian randomization methods, which use genetic variants as instrumental variables for exposures of interest to overcome problems of confounding and reverse causality, are becoming widespread for assessing causal relationships in epidemiological studies. The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how results can be biased if researchers select genetic variants on the basis of their association with the exposure in their own dataset, as often happens in candidate gene analyses. This can lead to estimates that indicate apparent "causal" relationships, despite there being no true effect of the exposure. In addition, we discuss the potential bias in estimates of magnitudes of effect from Mendelian randomization analyses when the measured exposure is a poor proxy for the true underlying exposure. We illustrate these points with specific reference to tobacco research.
孟德尔随机化方法利用遗传变异作为工具变量,可解决混杂和反向因果关系问题,在评估流行病学研究中的因果关系方面越来越普遍。本文的主要目的是说明如果研究人员根据自身数据集中暴露因素的相关性选择遗传变异,会导致结果产生偏差,这种情况在候选基因分析中经常发生。这可能导致出现看似“因果”关系的估计结果,而实际上并不存在暴露因素的真正影响。此外,我们还讨论了当测量的暴露因素是真实潜在暴露因素的不良替代物时,孟德尔随机化分析中效应大小估计值可能存在的偏差。我们将通过具体参考烟草研究来说明这些观点。