MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom; email:
Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, United Kingdom.
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2018 Aug 31;19:303-327. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021731. Epub 2018 Apr 25.
An observational correlation between a suspected risk factor and an outcome does not necessarily imply that interventions on levels of the risk factor will have a causal impact on the outcome (correlation is not causation). If genetic variants associated with the risk factor are also associated with the outcome, then this increases the plausibility that the risk factor is a causal determinant of the outcome. However, if the genetic variants in the analysis do not have a specific biological link to the risk factor, then causal claims can be spurious. We review the Mendelian randomization paradigm for making causal inferences using genetic variants. We consider monogenic analysis, in which genetic variants are taken from a single gene region, and polygenic analysis, which includes variants from multiple regions. We focus on answering two questions: When can Mendelian randomization be used to make reliable causal inferences, and when can it be used to make relevant causal inferences?
一种可疑风险因素与结果之间的观察相关性并不一定意味着针对该风险因素水平的干预措施将对结果产生因果影响(相关性不是因果关系)。如果与风险因素相关的遗传变异也与结果相关,那么这就增加了风险因素是结果的因果决定因素的可能性。然而,如果分析中的遗传变异与风险因素没有特定的生物学联系,那么因果关系的说法可能是虚假的。我们回顾了使用遗传变异进行因果推断的孟德尔随机化范例。我们考虑了单基因分析,其中遗传变异取自单个基因区域,以及多基因分析,其中包括来自多个区域的变异。我们专注于回答两个问题:何时可以使用孟德尔随机化进行可靠的因果推断,以及何时可以进行相关的因果推断?