Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses
Author(s) -
Tom Palmer,
John R. Thompson,
Martin D. Tobin,
Nuala A. Sheehan,
Paul R. Burton
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
international journal of epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.406
H-Index - 208
eISSN - 1464-3685
pISSN - 0300-5771
DOI - 10.1093/ije/dyn080
Subject(s) - mendelian randomization , confounding , randomization , binary number , statistics , causal inference , medicine , econometrics , mathematics , randomized controlled trial , genetics , biology , genetic variants , gene , genotype , arithmetic
Mendelian randomization uses a carefully selected gene as an instrumental-variable (IV) to test or estimate an association between a phenotype and a disease. Classical IV analysis assumes linear relationships between the variables, but disease status is often binary and modelled by a logistic regression. When the linearity assumption between the variables does not hold the IV estimates will be biased. The extent of this bias in the phenotype-disease log odds ratio of a Mendelian randomization study is investigated.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom