↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian methods for meta‐analysis of causal relationships estimated using genetic instrumental variables

Overview of attention for article published in Statistics in Medicine, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bayesian methods for meta‐analysis of causal relationships estimated using genetic instrumental variables
Published in
Statistics in Medicine, May 2010
DOI 10.1002/sim.3843
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Burgess, Simon G Thompson, S Burgess, S G Thompson, G Andrews, N J Samani, A Hall, P Whincup, R Morris, D A Lawlor, G Davey Smith, N Timpson, S Ebrahim, Y Ben-Shlomo, G Davey Smith, N Timpson, M Brown, S Ricketts, M Sandhu, A Reiner, B Psaty, L Lange, M Cushman, J Hung, P Thompson, J Beilby, N Warrington, L J Palmer, B G Nordestgaard, A Tybjaerg-Hansen, J Zacho, C Wu, G Lowe, I Tzoulaki, M Kumari, M Sandhu, J F Yamamoto, B Chiodini, M Franzosi, G J Hankey, K Jamrozik, L Palmer, E Rimm, J Pai, B Psaty, S Heckbert, J Bis, S Anand, J Engert, R Collins, R Clarke, O Melander, G Berglund, P Ladenvall, L Johansson, J-H Jansson, G Hallmans, A Hingorani, S Humphries, E Rimm, J Manson, J Pai, H Watkins, R Clarke, J Hopewell, D Saleheen, R Frossard, J Danesh, N Sattar, M Robertson, J Shepherd, E Schaefer, A Hofman, J C M Witteman, I Kardys, Y Ben-Shlomo, G Davey Smith, N Timpson, U de Faire, A Bennet, N Sattar, I Ford, C Packard, M Kumari, J Manson, Debbie A Lawlor, George Davey Smith, S Anand, R Collins, J P Casas, J Danesh, G Davey Smith, M Franzosi, A Hingorani, D A Lawlor, J Manson, B G Nordestgaard, N J Samani, M Sandhu, L Smeeth, F Wensley, S Anand, J Bowden, S Burgess, J P Casas, E Di Angelantonio, J Engert, P Gao, T Shah, L Smeeth, S G Thompson, C Verzilli, M Walker, J Whittaker, A Hingorani, J Danesh

Abstract

Genetic markers can be used as instrumental variables, in an analogous way to randomization in a clinical trial, to estimate the causal relationship between a phenotype and an outcome variable. Our purpose is to extend the existing methods for such Mendelian randomization studies to the context of multiple genetic markers measured in multiple studies, based on the analysis of individual participant data. First, for a single genetic marker in one study, we show that the usual ratio of coefficients approach can be reformulated as a regression with heterogeneous error in the explanatory variable. This can be implemented using a Bayesian approach, which is next extended to include multiple genetic markers. We then propose a hierarchical model for undertaking a meta-analysis of multiple studies, in which it is not necessary that the same genetic markers are measured in each study. This provides an overall estimate of the causal relationship between the phenotype and the outcome, and an assessment of its heterogeneity across studies. As an example, we estimate the causal relationship of blood concentrations of C-reactive protein on fibrinogen levels using data from 11 studies. These methods provide a flexible framework for efficient estimation of causal relationships derived from multiple studies. Issues discussed include weak instrument bias, analysis of binary outcome data such as disease risk, missing genetic data, and the use of haplotypes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 5%
United States 4 4%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 96 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Master 13 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 11%
Professor 11 10%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 36%
Mathematics 13 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Psychology 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 20 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2020.
All research outputs
#15,687,538
of 24,851,605 outputs
Outputs from Statistics in Medicine
#2,142
of 4,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,390
of 100,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Statistics in Medicine
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,851,605 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,043 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 100,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.