Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mendelian randomization

Mendelian randomization (MR) is an epidemiological technique that employs genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer causal relationships between modifiable risk factors (exposures) and health, social, or economic outcomes, leveraging the random allocation of alleles at conception to mimic the randomization in controlled trials and thereby reduce biases from confounding and reverse causation.^[1] This method relies on Mendel's laws of segregation and independent assortment, ensuring that genetic variants are distributed independently of environmental or behavioral factors that might otherwise distort associations in observational data.^[2] The core principles of MR are grounded in three key assumptions that must hold for valid causal inference. First, the relevance assumption requires that the genetic variant (instrument) is robustly associated with the exposure of interest.^[3] Second, the independence assumption stipulates that the instrument is independent of any confounders that affect both the exposure and the outcome.^[3] Third, the exclusion restriction assumption demands that the instrument influences the outcome solely through its effect on the exposure, without direct pleiotropic effects or pathways via other factors.^[3] Violations of these assumptions, such as horizontal pleiotropy or population stratification, can be addressed using advanced statistical methods like inverse-variance weighted regression or MR-Egger, which have evolved with the advent of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Overall, MR bridges genetics and epidemiology, providing robust evidence for causal inference where randomized trials are infeasible or unethical.^[2]

Introduction and Background

Motivation

Traditional observational epidemiological studies, such as cross-sectional and cohort designs, often face significant challenges in establishing causal relationships due to confounding by environmental factors and reverse causation. Confounding occurs when extraneous variables, like socioeconomic status or lifestyle behaviors, distort the apparent association between an exposure and an outcome, leading to biased estimates that may not reflect true causality.^[4] Similarly, reverse causation can arise when the outcome influences the exposure, as seen in studies where disease symptoms alter reported behaviors, further complicating inference from non-experimental data.^[5] Mendelian randomization leverages genetic variants, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), as instrumental variables to serve as unconfounded proxies for modifiable exposures. These variants are randomly assorted during meiosis according to Mendel's laws of inheritance, ensuring their distribution at conception is independent of environmental confounders or behavioral factors that might otherwise bias results. This randomization mimics the allocation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), allowing researchers to strengthen causal evidence beyond mere associations observed in conventional studies.^[6] A prominent example involves using SNPs in genes like ADH1B, which influence alcohol metabolism and thereby consumption levels, to investigate the causal effect of alcohol intake on cardiovascular disease. In a large-scale analysis, carriers of the rs1229984 A-allele, associated with reduced alcohol consumption, exhibited a lower risk of coronary heart disease, providing robust evidence of a protective effect that observational data alone could not reliably confirm due to confounding by lifestyle factors.^[7] The concept of Mendelian randomization was first introduced in the 1980s, drawing an explicit analogy to the randomization in RCTs to address causality in genetic epidemiology. This approach gained traction as a tool to disentangle environmental determinants of disease, with early proposals highlighting its potential to use genetic proxies for exposures like cholesterol levels.^[8]

Core Concept

Mendelian randomization (MR) is an epidemiological method that uses germline genetic variants as instrumental variables to estimate the causal effects of modifiable exposures, such as lifestyle or environmental risk factors, on health outcomes like diseases or traits. This approach leverages the random assortment of genetic variants from parents to offspring during meiosis, analogous to the randomization in clinical trials, to minimize confounding and reverse causation biases inherent in traditional observational studies.^[9] At its core, MR relies on three key components forming a causal pathway: the genetic instrument, which consists of common genetic variants strongly associated with the exposure of interest; the exposure itself, a modifiable risk factor like body mass index or blood cholesterol levels; and the outcome, such as cardiovascular disease or cognitive function.^[2] These elements create a "MR triangle" where the genetic variants influence the outcome exclusively through their effect on the exposure, without direct paths or common causes linking the instrument to the outcome independently. This relationship can be illustrated conceptually through a simple directed acyclic graph (DAG), depicting the pathway as: genetic variant (G) → exposure (X) → outcome (Y), with no backdoor paths from unmeasured confounders (U) or pleiotropic effects connecting G directly to Y or confounding the G-X association. Unlike genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which identify statistical associations between genetic variants and traits without implying causation, MR builds on these associations to provide causal inferences by treating the variants as proxies for the exposure under specific conditions.^[9]

Principles and Assumptions

Instrumental Variable Framework

The instrumental variable (IV) approach, developed in econometrics and widely applied in epidemiology, addresses confounding in estimating the causal effect of an exposure X on an outcome Y by leveraging an instrumental variable Z that influences X but not Y directly or through confounders.^[10] A valid instrument Z must meet three core criteria: relevance, requiring a robust association between Z and X; exclusion restriction, ensuring Z affects Y solely through X with no direct or alternative pathways; and independence, mandating that Z shares no common causes with Y or the confounders of the X-Y relationship.^[6] These criteria enable unbiased causal inference, analogous to randomization in experimental designs, by isolating the effect of X on Y.^[10] Under linearity, monotonicity, and no measurement error assumptions, the IV estimand for the causal effect \beta of X on Y is formally represented as the ratio of covariances:

\beta = \frac{\mathrm{Cov}(Z, Y)}{\mathrm{Cov}(Z, X)}

This Wald ratio estimator, also known as the two-stage least squares method in its generalized form, derives from the structural equation where Y = \beta X + U and \mathrm{Cov}(Z, U) = 0, ensuring consistency when direct regression of Y on X is biased by unmeasured confounders.^[11] In Mendelian randomization (MR), genetic variants—particularly single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)—function as instruments Z, exploiting Mendel's laws of inheritance to ensure random assortment at conception, which approximates independence from environmental confounders.^[10] SNPs are selected for their strong, population-level associations with modifiable exposures like biomarkers or behaviors, often identified via genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, pleiotropy risks, where an SNP influences multiple traits, can arise due to linkage disequilibrium (LD), a non-random association between nearby SNPs that may tag unintended causal variants, potentially breaching the exclusion restriction through horizontal pleiotropy.^[12] LD-based clumping or colocalization methods help mitigate these issues by pruning correlated SNPs or testing shared causal signals.^[12] A representative application involves using lactase persistence variants, such as the rs4988235 SNP in the MCM6 gene, as IVs for dairy (milk) intake to examine effects on bone health. In a cohort study of 97,811 Danish individuals combined with meta-analysis across Northern European populations, the T-allele (associated with adult lactase persistence) predicted higher milk consumption (approximately 0.58 glasses per week per allele) but yielded only a small increase in femoral neck bone mineral density (standardized mean difference: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02–0.18) with no reduction in hip fracture risk (odds ratio: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.61–1.21).^[13] This illustrates how genetic IVs can test observational hypotheses, such as dairy's protective role in osteoporosis, while highlighting modest effect sizes typical in MR due to the limited explanatory power of genetic variants for complex exposures.^[13]

Key Assumptions

Mendelian randomization relies on the instrumental variable framework, where genetic variants serve as instruments for the exposure of interest. For valid causal inference, three core assumptions must hold: relevance, independence, and exclusion restriction. These assumptions leverage the unique properties of genetic variation, such as random allocation during meiosis, to approximate randomization in observational data.^[14]^[6] The relevance assumption requires that the genetic variants are robustly associated with the exposure, ensuring sufficient instrument strength to identify causal effects. This association is typically evaluated using the F-statistic from a regression of the exposure on the genetic variants, with a value greater than 10 indicating minimal risk of weak instrument bias. In genetic contexts, this often involves selecting variants from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that explain a meaningful proportion of variance in the exposure.^[6]^[15] The independence assumption posits that the genetic variants are not associated with confounders of the exposure-outcome relationship. This is underpinned by Mendelian inheritance, where alleles are randomly assorted to offspring during meiosis, mimicking a randomized controlled trial and breaking links with environmental or behavioral factors that could confound associations. Population stratification or linkage disequilibrium can violate this if not addressed, but the meiotic randomization process generally ensures independence in diverse populations.^[14]^[6] The exclusion restriction assumption states that the genetic variants influence the outcome solely through the exposure, with no direct effects via alternative pathways. Violations occur through horizontal pleiotropy, where a variant affects multiple traits independently of the exposure. This assumption is particularly stringent for genetic instruments, as variants may have broad biological effects, but it holds ideally when the variant's primary pathway is via the exposure.^[14]^[6] Genetic instruments can be monogenic, relying on a single variant strongly linked to the exposure (e.g., ALDH2 for alcohol metabolism), or polygenic, using multiple variants aggregated into a score to capture complex traits. Polygenic instruments enhance relevance for exposures with distributed genetic architecture but require careful selection to maintain the exclusion restriction, as additional variants increase pleiotropy risk. The random segregation at meiosis reinforces all assumptions across both types by preventing systematic confounding from parental or environmental sources.^[6]^[2]

Violations and Robustness

Mendelian randomization relies on three core assumptions: relevance (genetic variants strongly associate with the exposure), independence (variants are independent of confounders), and exclusion restriction (variants affect the outcome only through the exposure). Violations of these assumptions can introduce bias, undermining causal inferences. Common violations include weak instrument bias, where the association between genetic variants and the exposure is insufficiently strong, leading to estimates biased toward the null or confounded observational associations. This occurs particularly in studies with polygenic exposures or limited sample sizes for instrument discovery.^[16] Population stratification breaches the independence assumption when subpopulations differ in both allele frequencies and exposure or outcome distributions, introducing confounding that mimics causal effects. For instance, ancestral differences can correlate genetic variants with environmental factors not accounted for in the analysis. Pleiotropy, particularly horizontal pleiotropy, violates the exclusion restriction if variants influence the outcome through pathways other than the exposure, such as direct effects on multiple traits. Canalization represents a subtler violation, where developmental or physiological buffering compensates for genetic perturbations, potentially attenuating observed effects and leading to underestimation of causal impacts.^[17]^[18]^[19] To assess and enhance robustness, researchers employ diagnostic checks and sensitivity analyses. The F-statistic from the first-stage regression evaluates instrument strength, with values below 10 indicating weak instruments prone to bias; thresholds above 30 are preferred for multi-instrument settings. For pleiotropy detection, the MR-Egger intercept test examines whether the intercept deviates significantly from zero, signaling directional pleiotropy across variants. These checks help quantify violation severity without assuming specific bias directions.^[16]^[18] Strategies to mitigate violations include using multiple genetic instruments, which dilutes pleiotropic effects through overidentification and improves precision when instruments are conditionally independent. Bidirectional Mendelian randomization tests for reverse causation by swapping exposure and outcome, revealing potential feedback loops if associations differ directionally. Addressing population structure involves sensitivity analyses with ancestry principal components or within-family designs, which control for shared familial confounders and stratification. Multivariable Mendelian randomization extends this by jointly modeling multiple exposures, adjusting for correlated pleiotropic pathways.^[17] An illustrative example involves lipid traits, where genetic variants in genes like APOE and PCSK9 exhibit pleiotropy by influencing multiple lipid fractions (e.g., LDL cholesterol and triglycerides) that jointly affect coronary heart disease risk. Initial single-variable analyses may overestimate effects due to unadjusted pleiotropy, but multivariable Mendelian randomization resolves this by estimating direct effects of specific lipids while controlling for others, confirming causal roles for LDL but not HDL in some cases.^[20]

Methods and Statistical Analysis

Basic Models

Mendelian randomization (MR) employs genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer causal effects between an exposure and an outcome. In the two-sample MR design, associations between genetic variants and the exposure are obtained from one genome-wide association study (GWAS), while associations between the same variants and the outcome are derived from a separate GWAS, enabling efficient use of large-scale summary statistics without requiring individual-level data overlap.^[21] This approach assumes the genetic variants are valid instruments and that the samples are drawn from the same underlying population to avoid bias from population stratification.^[21] For a single genetic variant as an instrument, the causal effect in two-sample MR is estimated using the Wald ratio estimator, defined as the ratio of the genetic variant-outcome association coefficient (\beta_{YV}) to the genetic variant-exposure association coefficient (\beta_{XV}): \beta = \frac{\beta_{YV}}{\beta_{XV}}.^[21] This estimator provides the change in the outcome per unit change in the exposure, with its standard error approximated via the delta method to assess precision: \text{SE}(\beta) \approx \frac{\sqrt{\text{Var}(\beta_{YV}) / \beta_{XV}^2 + \beta_{YV}^2 \text{Var}(\beta_{XV}) / \beta_{XV}^4}}{\beta_{XV}}.^[21] The ratio method, synonymous with the Wald ratio for a single instrument, simplifies causal inference by directly dividing the effect estimates, assuming no pleiotropy or confounding.^[21] In contrast, one-sample MR utilizes individual-level data from a single cohort, where the exposure, outcome, and genetic variants are measured in the same participants. The primary estimation method is two-stage least squares (2SLS), which involves two linear regressions: in the first stage, the exposure (X) is regressed on the genetic instruments (G) to obtain predicted values \hat{X}; in the second stage, the outcome (Y) is regressed on \hat{X} to yield the causal effect estimate. This approach accounts for the instrumental variable framework by isolating the exogenous variation in the exposure driven by genetics, producing consistent estimates under the core MR assumptions. Basic MR models typically assume linearity in the relationships between the genetic variants, exposure, and outcome, implying no effect modification by unmeasured factors and a constant causal effect across levels of the exposure.^[22] For binary outcomes, which are common in epidemiological applications, linear models may approximate the causal effect on the risk difference scale. Alternatively, when outcome associations are estimated via logistic regression, they provide log-odds ratios per genetic variant; the MR causal estimate (e.g., via IVW) is then interpreted as the log-odds ratio per unit change in the exposure (typically per standard deviation increase). These methods maintain interpretability on the odds ratio scale, though linear approximations are often used for simplicity and comparability.^[22]

Estimation Techniques

The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method is a standard approach for estimating causal effects in Mendelian randomization, particularly when using multiple genetic variants as instrumental variables. It pools individual Wald ratio estimates—each defined as the ratio of the genetic association with the outcome to the association with the exposure—through a fixed-effects meta-analysis framework, weighting each ratio by the inverse of its variance to maximize efficiency under the assumption of no horizontal pleiotropy. This method assumes that all selected variants are valid instruments and that their effects are homogeneous, producing an unbiased estimate when these conditions hold. The combined estimate is given by

\hat{\beta}_{IVW} = \frac{\sum_j \frac{\hat{\beta}_{Yj}}{\text{SE}(\hat{\beta}_{Yj})^2 / \hat{\beta}_{Xj}^2}}{\sum_j \frac{1}{\text{SE}(\hat{\beta}_{Yj})^2 / \hat{\beta}_{Xj}^2}},

where \hat{\beta}_{Xj} and \hat{\beta}_{Yj} are the summary statistics for the associations of variant j with the exposure and outcome, respectively, and \text{SE}(\hat{\beta}_{Yj}) is the standard error of the outcome association; the variance of the IVW estimate is the reciprocal of the denominator sum. In two-sample Mendelian randomization, which relies on summary statistics from separate genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for the exposure and outcome, careful handling of these data is essential to ensure compatibility. Harmonization of alleles involves aligning the effect alleles across datasets, addressing issues such as strand ambiguity (where the reference strand differs between studies) and palindromic single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), for which the effect allele cannot be unambiguously determined without frequency information. This process typically excludes non-inferable palindromic SNPs or flips effect sizes based on allele frequencies to match the reference allele, preventing mismatched associations that could bias estimates. For missing data, such as SNPs present in one GWAS but absent in the other, standard practice is exclusion to maintain validity, though imputation methods like linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based summary statistic imputation can recover missing associations by leveraging reference panels, improving power in sparse datasets while introducing minimal bias if LD patterns are accurately modeled. Several software tools facilitate the implementation of IVW and related estimation techniques in Mendelian randomization. In R, the MendelianRandomization package provides functions for IVW estimation, sensitivity analyses, and handling summarized data, supporting both one- and two-sample designs with built-in options for variance calculations and plotting. The TwoSampleMR package extends this by integrating with the IEU OpenGWAS database for automated data retrieval, performing allele harmonization, and executing IVW alongside other methods, making it particularly user-friendly for large-scale analyses. In Python, libraries such as genal support genetic risk scoring and Mendelian randomization, including IVW estimation via summary statistics. Other tools include py-merp for curating variants and performing MR analyses. These tools emphasize reproducibility, with features for data formatting and output standardization. Practical considerations in applying these estimation techniques include ensuring adequate sample sizes to achieve sufficient power, as Mendelian randomization requires strong instruments (typically F-statistics >10 per variant) and large GWAS (often >10,000 participants per trait) to detect modest causal effects, with power scaling quadratically with the proportion of exposure variance explained by the instruments. In two-sample designs, sample overlap between exposure and outcome GWAS can inflate type I error rates by biasing estimates away from the null, particularly for weak instruments, so non-overlapping samples are preferred or corrections applied via methods accounting for correlation. Additionally, standardization of units—expressing associations per standard deviation increase in the exposure or outcome—facilitates interpretation and comparison across studies, avoiding scale-dependent biases in pooled estimates.^[23]^[24]

Advanced Approaches

To address violations such as pleiotropy, where genetic variants influence outcomes through pathways other than the exposure of interest, advanced Mendelian randomization (MR) methods have been developed to enhance robustness and causal inference accuracy. One prominent approach is MR-Egger regression, introduced by Bowden et al. in 2015, which extends the standard inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method by incorporating an intercept term to detect and adjust for directional pleiotropy. In this framework, the model regresses the outcome variant associations (\beta_Y) on the exposure variant associations (\beta_X) with an additional intercept (\alpha):

\beta_Y = \alpha + \theta \beta_X + \epsilon

Here, the slope \theta provides a consistent estimate of the causal effect under the assumption of instrument strength independence (similar to the InSIDE assumption), while a non-zero intercept \alpha indicates the presence of pleiotropy. This method is particularly useful when many instruments are weak or pleiotropic, though it can suffer from reduced precision due to the added parameter and bias in finite samples. Building on sensitivity to invalid instruments, the weighted median estimator, proposed by Bowden et al. in 2016, offers robustness by selecting the median of the individual Wald ratios (outcome-exposure ratios per variant) weighted by the inverse variance of the exposure association. This approach remains consistent even if up to 50% of instruments are invalid, assuming the valid instruments carry more than half the total weight, making it suitable for large-scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) data with heterogeneous pleiotropy. Similarly, the weighted mode estimator, also from Bowden et al. (2016), identifies the cluster of most similar causal estimates across instruments using a kernel density approach, providing consistent estimates if the largest cluster of valid instruments dominates. These non-parametric methods complement MR-Egger by prioritizing majority validity over model-based assumptions, though they may lack power in scenarios with sparse valid instruments. For scenarios involving multiple correlated exposures, multivariable MR (MVMR) extends the single-exposure framework to simultaneously estimate causal effects while controlling for confounding from other traits. Burgess and Thompson (2015) formalized MVMR using a multivariate IVW approach, where genetic instruments for multiple exposures are jointly modeled:

\mathbf{\beta}_Y = \mathbf{\beta}_X \boldsymbol{\theta} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}

In this equation, \mathbf{\beta}_Y and \mathbf{\beta}_X are vectors of SNP-outcome and SNP-exposure associations, and \boldsymbol{\theta} captures the vector of causal effects. For instance, in studying body mass index (BMI) effects on cardiovascular disease, MVMR can adjust for correlated exposures like blood lipids, isolating the direct BMI pathway and reducing bias from shared genetic architecture. Extensions like multivariable MR-Egger further incorporate pleiotropy testing within this multi-exposure setup. Nonlinear MR addresses limitations of linear assumptions by exploring exposure-outcome relationships across the distribution, particularly useful for traits with threshold or U-shaped effects. Burgess et al. (2018) proposed using genetic risk scores (GRS) stratified by exposure quantiles, fitting fractional polynomial or spline models to detect deviations from linearity while maintaining monotonicity assumptions. An alternative doubly ranked approach, developed by Staley et al. (2023), ranks individuals by both GRS and observed exposure levels, then applies logistic or probit models to estimate effects in exposure subgroups, enabling detection of non-monotonic patterns without relying on precise exposure measurement. These methods leverage large GWAS summary data but require careful handling of weak instrument bias in nonlinear contexts.^[25] Emerging methods as of 2025 include time-resolved MR, which incorporates temporal data to disentangle causality over time, and invariance-based approaches like MR-EILLS for enhanced pleiotropy robustness using invariance principles.^[26]^[27]

Applications and Examples

In Epidemiology and Public Health

Mendelian randomization (MR) has been instrumental in establishing causal relationships between biomarkers and disease outcomes in epidemiology, providing robust evidence where observational studies may be confounded. A prominent example is the investigation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol's causal effect on coronary heart disease (CHD). Using genetic variants in the HMGCR gene, which encodes the target of statins, MR analyses have shown that genetically lowering LDL cholesterol levels reduces CHD risk proportionally to the absolute reduction achieved. Specifically, a 1 mmol/L decrease in LDL cholesterol mediated by HMGCR variants was associated with a 54% lower risk of CHD, mirroring the effects observed in randomized trials of statin therapy. This approach leverages the random allocation of genetic variants at conception to mimic randomization in clinical trials, strengthening causal inference for lipid-lowering interventions. MR has also elucidated the causal impacts of lifestyle factors on health outcomes, addressing confounders like socioeconomic status and reverse causation. For alcohol consumption, genetic variants in alcohol-metabolizing genes, such as ADH1B and ALDH2, have been used as instruments to demonstrate that intake causally increases blood pressure and hypertension risk. A systematic review implementing MR found that genetically predicted alcohol intake raises systolic blood pressure by approximately 0.24 mmHg per gram of alcohol per day.^[28] Similarly, polygenic scores for educational attainment have revealed causal protective effects on various health metrics. Higher genetically predicted years of schooling are associated with lower risks of smoking, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, with one MR study estimating a 9% reduction in coronary heart disease risk per additional year of education (based on 33% lower risk for 3.6 years), independent of cognitive ability.^[29] These findings highlight education's role in health disparities and inform interventions targeting socioeconomic determinants.^[30] In drug target validation, MR facilitates repurposing by assessing lifelong effects of modulating specific pathways, often using variants near drug targets. For interleukin-6 receptor (IL6R) inhibition, genetic variants like rs2228145, which impair IL6R signaling, have been employed in MR to validate therapeutic benefits for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Analyses indicate that genetically predicted lower IL-6 signaling reduces RA risk by 22% (OR 0.78), providing genetic support for drugs like tocilizumab, which target IL6R and are approved for RA treatment.^[31] This approach not only confirms on-target effects but also identifies potential side effects, enhancing the safety profile for clinical use in inflammatory diseases. The public health implications of MR extend to shaping guidelines through causal evidence on modifiable risk factors. In the context of adiposity and cancer, MR studies using BMI and body fat percentage polygenic scores have causally linked higher adiposity to increased risks of at least 13 cancer sites, including endometrial, colorectal, and postmenopausal breast cancers. For instance, a 1 standard deviation higher genetically predicted BMI is associated with a 47% elevated risk for endometrial cancer, 7% for colorectal cancer, and 11% for postmenopausal breast cancer, reinforcing the mechanistic role of excess fat in carcinogenesis via insulin resistance and inflammation.^[32] This evidence has influenced policy, such as the World Cancer Research Fund's recommendations to avoid weight gain in adulthood, which cite MR alongside other data to prioritize obesity prevention in cancer control strategies. By providing unconfounded causal estimates, MR has bolstered the shift toward evidence-based public health interventions aimed at reducing obesity-related disease burden. Recent MR applications as of 2025 include validation of vitamin D supplementation's causal role in reducing COVID-19 severity, informing post-pandemic health strategies.^[33]

In Other Disciplines

Mendelian randomization has been applied in economics and social sciences to investigate causal effects of socioeconomic factors such as education and income on various outcomes, leveraging genetic variants associated with these traits as instrumental variables. For instance, polygenic scores for educational attainment have been used to estimate the causal impact of education on social mobility, revealing that genetic predispositions to higher education predict upward mobility in social class, independent of family background.^[34] Similarly, Mendelian randomization analyses have shown that genetically predicted higher educational attainment causally reduces risks of chronic diseases and increases income in adulthood, supporting policies aimed at enhancing educational access to improve long-term socioeconomic outcomes.^[35] In studies of income, genetic instruments indicate that higher household income causally lowers the risk of mental health disorders like depression and anxiety, highlighting the protective role of economic resources against psychological distress.^[36] In behavioral genetics, Mendelian randomization has elucidated causal pathways from personality traits to life outcomes, particularly substance use behaviors. Genetic variants linked to impulsivity and other personality dimensions, such as neuroticism, have been shown to increase the risk of alcohol consumption and cannabis use, providing evidence against purely environmental explanations for these associations.^[37] For example, bidirectional analyses suggest that genetically predicted higher extraversion may protect against smoking initiation, while traits like low conscientiousness elevate vulnerability to substance dependence, informing targeted interventions in addiction research.^[38] Cross-disciplinary applications extend Mendelian randomization to psychology, where it has been used to probe links between cognitive ability and mental health. Genetic predictors of cognitive function indicate a causal protective effect against schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, with higher cognitive ability reducing the incidence of these conditions by up to 20% per standard deviation increase.^[39] In nutrition, Mendelian randomization has clarified gene-diet interactions, such as how variants influencing alcohol metabolism affect cardiovascular risk through dietary patterns, demonstrating that genetic predispositions to lower alcohol intake reduce heart disease incidence.^[40] These examples illustrate the method's versatility in integrating genetic data with environmental exposures across fields. Applying Mendelian randomization in non-medical disciplines presents unique challenges, including smaller effect sizes for genetic instruments on social exposures like education or income, which explain only 5-15% of trait variance and necessitate large sample sizes for reliable estimates.^[2] Ethical concerns also arise, particularly with social exposures, as interpreting genetic influences on traits like income risks reinforcing stereotypes or exacerbating inequalities if findings are misused in policy contexts.^[41] Additionally, pleiotropy—where genetic variants affect multiple traits—poses greater risks in these fields due to the polygenic nature of socioeconomic outcomes, requiring robust sensitivity analyses to validate causal inferences.^[42]

Limitations and Challenges

Common Pitfalls

One common pitfall in Mendelian randomization (MR) studies is selection bias, which arises when genetic instruments are chosen from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) based on stringent significance thresholds, leading to inflated effect estimates known as the winner's curse.^[43] This bias occurs because SNPs that just meet the discovery threshold (e.g., p < 5 × 10⁻⁸) tend to have overestimated effects in the initial GWAS, and reusing them in MR without correction propagates this overestimation to causal inferences.^[44] Additionally, non-random sampling in GWAS consortia can exacerbate selection bias if participant recruitment favors certain demographics or excludes underrepresented groups, violating the representativeness needed for valid instrument-outcome associations.^[45] Dynastic effects represent another frequent error, where indirect familial influences from parental genotypes confound the independence assumption of MR.^[46] These effects occur when a parent's phenotype, shaped by their genotype, directly impacts the offspring's outcome (e.g., educated parents fostering higher offspring education), creating spurious SNP-outcome links that mimic causality but stem from shared family environments rather than direct genetic effects.^[47] Such violations can lead to biased estimates if not addressed through family-based designs.^[46] Over-reliance on p-values without evaluating instrument strength or heterogeneity often invalidates MR conclusions, as weak instruments (F-statistic < 10) introduce bias toward the null or inflate type I errors, even if associations appear statistically significant.^[6] For instance, failing to assess the F-statistic for each genetic variant can mask weak instrument bias, where imprecise exposure proxies underestimate causal effects, while ignoring heterogeneity tests (e.g., Cochran's Q) overlooks directional pleiotropy across instruments, assuming uniform causal pathways when none exist.^[6] This pitfall undermines the core MR assumptions of instrument relevance and exclusion restriction, as p-value significance alone cannot confirm instrumental validity.^[48] Reporting issues, such as insufficient transparency in instrument selection and sensitivity analyses, frequently compromise the reproducibility and credibility of MR studies.^[49] Authors often omit details on how variants were chosen (e.g., criteria beyond p-value thresholds) or fail to describe quality control measures, making it impossible to verify assumption adherence.^[50] Similarly, neglecting to report comprehensive sensitivity analyses—such as those for pleiotropy or robustness to weak instruments—hides potential biases, as recommended by STROBE-MR guidelines, leading readers to overinterpret primary estimates without contextual caveats.^[49]

Interpretation and Reporting

Interpreting effect sizes in Mendelian randomization (MR) studies involves assessing the magnitude of the estimated causal effect, typically expressed per standard deviation (SD) increase in the exposure to facilitate comparability across traits with different scales. For instance, if an MR analysis estimates a 0.2 SD increase in outcome risk per 1 SD higher exposure, this quantifies the proportional impact while accounting for the exposure's variability in the population.^[6] Such estimates are derived from the instrumental variable ratio, where the genetic effect on the outcome is divided by the genetic effect on the exposure, assuming valid instruments.^[6] Researchers often compare these MR-derived effect sizes to those from conventional observational studies; discrepancies may highlight confounding in the latter, as seen in analyses of C-reactive protein and coronary heart disease, where observational associations suggest causality but MR does not.^[6] Reporting standards for MR studies emphasize transparency to enable critical evaluation by readers, with the STROBE-MR checklist providing a structured framework of 20 items tailored to this methodology. Key requirements include disclosing the full selection process and details of genetic instruments, such as their associations with the exposure from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), to justify their validity and strength (e.g., F-statistic >10 to avoid weak instrument bias).^[49] Additionally, all sensitivity tests for violations like pleiotropy—using methods such as MR-Egger or weighted median—must be reported, along with results from robustness checks like heterogeneity assessments, to demonstrate the reliability of findings.^[51] The STROBE-MR guidelines also mandate clear descriptions of data sources, harmonization of alleles, and any multivariable adjustments, ensuring reproducibility without omitting potential sources of bias.^[49] Causal language in MR reporting should be used cautiously to avoid overstatements, as the method supports inferences consistent with causality under untestable assumptions rather than definitive proof. Phrases like "proves causation" are inappropriate; instead, results should be framed as "the association is consistent with a causal effect" or "genetic evidence supports a potential causal role," particularly when sensitivity analyses align.^[52] This approach aligns with broader recommendations for observational genetics, where instrumental variable analyses like MR permit limited causal phrasing only if prespecified and assumptions are explicitly discussed.^[52] Overreliance on strong causal claims can mislead, especially in heterogeneous results indicating possible pleiotropy or invalid instruments.^[53] Future directions in MR interpretation involve integrating results with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or other designs for evidence triangulation, which strengthens causal claims by converging findings from methods with distinct biases. For example, aligning MR estimates of a risk factor's effect with RCT outcomes—such as null effects of folate on coronary heart disease in both—bolsters confidence beyond either method alone.^[54] This triangulation can use quantitative approaches like Bayesian synthesis to weigh evidence, addressing MR's limitations in directionality or generalizability while leveraging RCTs' experimental rigor.^[54] Such hybrid strategies are increasingly recommended to inform public health interventions, prioritizing prespecified protocols to minimize selective reporting.^[54]

History and Development

Origins

The foundations of Mendelian randomization trace back to the mid-19th century with Gregor Mendel's experiments on pea plants, published in 1866, which established the laws of segregation and independent assortment. These laws describe how genetic factors (alleles) are transmitted from parents to offspring in a random manner during gamete formation, ensuring that genotypes are allocated independently of environmental influences or parental phenotypes. This natural randomization process at conception provides the conceptual basis for using genetic variants as unconfounded instruments in epidemiological studies to infer causality. In 1918, Ronald A. Fisher advanced these principles by demonstrating in his seminal paper "The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance" how Mendelian inheritance could account for the continuous variation observed in quantitative traits, such as height or blood pressure, through the additive effects of multiple genes of small effect. Fisher's analysis reconciled the apparent conflict between Mendelian genetics and biometrical approaches to inheritance, introducing the infinitesimal model that posits many loci contribute to phenotypic variance. This framework became essential for understanding how genetic variation influences complex, continuously distributed traits, setting the stage for later applications in causal inference where genetic instruments proxy for modifiable exposures.^[55] The explicit emergence of Mendelian randomization as a methodological approach occurred in the 1980s, prompted by challenges in observational epidemiology like confounding and reverse causation. In 1986, Martijn Katan proposed using polymorphisms in the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene—which influence serum cholesterol levels—as a natural experiment to test whether low cholesterol causally increases cancer risk, rather than the reverse. Katan's idea leveraged the instrumental variable properties of genetic variants, where the genotype affects the exposure (cholesterol) but not the outcome (cancer) directly, thus avoiding biases common in cohort studies.^[56] This proposal marked the first clear articulation of using genetics to strengthen causal claims in human studies. The term "Mendelian randomization" was coined in 1991 by Richard Gray and Keith Wheatley, who applied the concept to compare treatments for leukemia, noting how genetic randomization could reduce selection bias in evaluating bone marrow transplantation versus chemotherapy.^[57] Concurrently, econometric developments influenced the formalization of instrumental variable analysis in genetics; Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens' 1994 work on the local average treatment effect (LATE) provided a theoretical foundation, interpreting IV estimates as the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome for the subpopulation whose exposure is altered by the instrument (compliers). This LATE framework was soon adapted to genetic contexts, enabling precise interpretation of Mendelian randomization results.^[58] Early applications in the 1990s focused on cardiovascular traits, particularly using genetic variants associated with blood pressure to explore causal links to outcomes like myocardial infarction. A notable example is the 1994 study by Tiret et al., which examined the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) insertion/deletion polymorphism—a variant influencing blood pressure—as an instrument to assess its synergistic effects with other genes on myocardial infarction risk, providing initial evidence for genetic approaches to disentangle causality in hypertension-related diseases.^[59] These pioneering efforts highlighted the potential of Mendelian randomization to address limitations in traditional epidemiology while relying on emerging genetic markers.

Key Advances

The 2000s saw the establishment of two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) as a practical extension of the foundational framework introduced by Davey Smith and Ebrahim in 2003, which proposed using genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer causal effects while mimicking randomized controlled trials. This approach gained traction with the availability of summary-level genetic data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), particularly following the International HapMap Project's release of haplotype maps in 2005 and 2007, which facilitated the identification of common variants suitable as instruments across populations.^[60] Burgess and Thompson's 2015 blueprint further refined two-sample MR by outlining methods to harmonize data from separate exposure and outcome studies, enhancing statistical power and applicability without requiring individual-level data.^[61] In the 2010s, methodological innovations addressed key limitations like pleiotropy, where genetic variants influence outcomes through multiple pathways. The MR-Egger regression, developed by Bowden, Davey Smith, and Burgess in 2015, introduced a sensitivity analysis to detect and adjust for directional pleiotropy by modeling the relationship between variant-exposure and variant-outcome associations as an Egger intercept test.^[62] Building on this, Bowden and colleagues proposed the weighted median estimator in 2016, which yields consistent causal estimates provided that more than 50% of the weighted instruments are valid, offering robustness against invalid variants without assuming no pleiotropy.^[63] Concurrently, the integration of large-scale GWAS datasets, such as those from the UK Biobank released starting in 2015, revolutionized MR by providing millions of genetic associations, enabling analyses with greater precision and the exploration of complex traits.^[60] The 2020s have brought advances in handling non-linearity and bias in diverse populations, alongside computational innovations. Nonlinear MR methods, such as fractional polynomial and piecewise linear approaches, allow estimation of curved exposure-outcome relationships, revealing thresholds or U-shaped effects that linear models overlook, as demonstrated in studies of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.^[64]^[65] Machine learning techniques for instrument selection have emerged to improve validity and efficiency; for instance, the quantile instrumental variable estimator introduced in 2024 uses nonparametric methods to select and weight variants, reducing bias in high-dimensional genetic data.^[66] Efforts to mitigate ancestry-related biases have intensified, with 2023 multi-ancestry MR studies highlighting transferability issues in polygenic scores and advocating for diverse GWAS to avoid underestimation of effects in non-European populations.^[67] These advances have propelled MR's impact, with publication numbers surging to over 16,000 studies as of mid-2025, reflecting its integration into causal epidemiology.^[68] Notably, MR has informed COVID-19 research by prioritizing drug targets, such as immune-related genes identified through transcriptome-wide analyses that supported repurposing of existing therapeutics based on causal evidence from genetic variants.^[67]

References

[1]
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyg070
[2]
Mendelian Randomization: Concepts and Scope - PMC
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method of studying the causal effects of modifiable exposures (i.e., potential risk factors) on health, social, and economic ...
[3]
https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a040501
[4]
Capitalising on Mendelian randomization to assess the effects of ...
Mendelian randomisation as a term has also recently been used to describe methods for obtaining unbiased estimates of causal associations in observational ...
[5]
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/33/1/30/668246
[6]
Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in ...
Observational epidemiological studies are prone to confounding, reverse causation and various biases and have generated findings that have proved to be ...Missing: motivation | Show results with:motivation
[7]
Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations
Mendelian randomization is the term applied to the random assortment of alleles at the time of gamete formation.Where can Mendelian... · Mendelian randomization in...
[8]
Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and ...
Jul 12, 2018 · Mendelian randomisation uses genetic variants, which are fixed at conception, to support causal inferences about the effects of modifiable risk ...
[9]
Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease - The BMJ
Jul 10, 2014 · In this large scale Mendelian randomisation analysis, we showed that carriers of the rs1229984 A-allele had lower levels of alcohol consumption ...Results · Genetic Association Analysis · Adh1b And Alcohol...
[10]
Commentary: The concept of 'Mendelian Randomization'
... Katan,1 which appears to be the first description of the concept of 'Mendelian randomization.' In discussing the controversy over whether the association ...
[11]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3989031/
[12]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6061876/
[13]
Mendelian randomization in health research: Using appropriate ...
β I V = cov ( y , z ) cov ( x , z ). Thus, if the denominator, cov(x, z) is larger, and the numerator cov(y, z) remains constant, the estimated effect, βIV, ...
[14]
Evaluating the potential role of pleiotropy in Mendelian ... - NIH
If SNP 1 was used to instrument Gene 1 to test its effect on Trait 3, it would exhibit a pleiotropic association through linkage disequilibrium with SNP 2. (B) ...
[15]
Lactase persistence, milk intake, hip fracture and bone mineral ...
Mar 14, 2018 · We tested the hypothesis that genetically determined milk intake reduces the risk of fractures and increases bone mineral density (BMD). Methods.Missing: example | Show results with:example
[16]
'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to ...
Mendelian randomization provides new opportunities to test causality and demonstrates how investment in the human genome project may contribute to ...
[17]
Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization ...
Mar 16, 2011 · We seek to develop guidelines for the design and analysis of Mendelian randomization studies to minimize bias.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[18]
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv031
[19]
Mendelian randomization | Nature Reviews Methods Primers
Feb 10, 2022 · Although MR was first proposed using family data where the difference in alleles between siblings is random, data limitations mean that most MR ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
[20]
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht571
[21]
Canalization - Mendelian randomization dictionary
The process by which potentially disruptive influences on normal development from genetic (and environmental) exposures are damped or buffered by compensatory ...
[22]
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy188
[23]
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/4/1157/658848
[24]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5722032/
[25]
Power and sample size calculations for Mendelian randomization ...
Aug 9, 2013 · Sample sizes of around 12 500 were required in this scenario to give power of around 0.8, with some sampling variation around this number. This ...
[26]
Two-sample Mendelian randomization: avoiding the downsides of a ...
Summary data Mendelian randomization refers to methods which use summary-level instrument-exposure and instrument-outcome association results (typically, per- ...
[27]
Alcohol Intake and Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review ...
Mar 4, 2008 · In this study, therefore, the researchers have used “Mendelian randomization” to investigate whether alcohol intake affects blood pressure.
[28]
Education and coronary heart disease: mendelian randomisation ...
Aug 30, 2017 · This mendelian randomisation study found support for the hypothesis that low education is a causal risk factor in the development of coronary heart disease.Statistical Analyses · Results · Observational Analyses<|control11|><|separator|>
[29]
Mendelian randomisation analysis of the effect of educational ...
Jul 3, 2019 · Recent analyses have shown educational attainment to be associated with a number of health outcomes. This association may, in part, ...
[30]
Genetic drug target validation using Mendelian randomisation - Nature
Jun 26, 2020 · Mendelian randomisation (MR) analysis is an important tool to elucidate the causal relevance of environmental and biological risk factors for disease.
[31]
The Role of Mendelian Randomization Studies in Deciphering the ...
Cornish and colleagues' study (39) showed increased colorectal cancer risk for genetically predicted body fat percentage (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.25), BMI ...Breast Cancer · Lung Cancer · Table 2Missing: policy | Show results with:policy
[32]
[PDF] Genetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies
One way to test the hypothesis that education-linked genetics influence social-class outcomes is to test if having more education- linked genetics predicts ...Missing: Mendelian randomization
[33]
causal effects of education on adult health, mortality and income ...
Jul 18, 2023 · Our Mendelian randomization estimates suggest educational attainment affects morbidity, including reducing the risk of hypertension, diabetes, ...
[34]
Exploring the bidirectional causal link between household income ...
Jul 26, 2023 · Our results revealed that the populations with a superior household income exhibit an increased predisposition of genetic susceptibility to ...
[35]
Using Mendelian randomization to explore the gateway hypothesis ...
Sep 29, 2021 · Bidirectional Mendelian randomization testing of the gateway hypothesis reveals that smoking initiation may lead to increased alcohol consumption, cannabis use ...Abstract · INTRODUCTION · METHODS · RESULTS
[36]
Using Mendelian randomization analysis to better understand the ...
In this pre-registered systematic review, we assessed the evidence for causal relationships between mental health and substance use from Mendelian randomization ...
[37]
Causal Impacts of Psychiatric Disorders on Cognition and the ...
Jan 29, 2025 · Mendelian randomization (MR) estimates of the causal associations of nine psychiatric disorders with three dimensions of cognitive function. The ...
[38]
Mendelian Randomization Identifies the Potential Causal Impact of ...
To establish these effects, we utilized two-sample Mendelian randomization using the genetic variants associated with dietary traits as instrumental variables.
[39]
Mendelian Randomisation: Concepts, Opportunities, Challenges ...
Jun 17, 2025 · Mendelian randomisation is an approach in genetic epidemiology that uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate the causal relationshipMissing: origin | Show results with:origin<|separator|>
[40]
Methodological approaches, challenges, and opportunities in the ...
Mendelian randomisation (MR) is increasingly used to estimate causal effects of exposures across the lifecourse on later life outcomes. This systematic ...
[41]
Effect of selection bias on two sample summary data based ... - Nature
Apr 7, 2021 · This bias is a form of winner's curse. Selection bias has been discussed in the literature in the context of the choice of the instrument ...
[42]
An empirical investigation into the impact of winner's curse on ...
Aug 2, 2023 · Winner's curse can bias Mendelian randomization estimates, although its practical impact may not be substantial.Missing: selection | Show results with:selection
[43]
Mendelian randomization for causal inference accounting ... - PNAS
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a valuable tool for inferring causal relationships among a wide range of traits using summary statistics from genome-wide ...
[44]
Avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification ...
Jul 14, 2020 · Within-family Mendelian randomization can control for residual population stratification. Within-family estimates from samples of siblings that ...
[45]
Integrating Family-Based and Mendelian Randomization Designs
Dynastic effects, assortative mating, and residual population stratification result in biased estimates of the SNP-phenotype associations. If biased SNP- ...
[46]
A Guide to Understanding Mendelian Randomization Studies - PMC
Feb 18, 2025 · The F statistic is a measurement that scales with the sample size of the exposure GWAS and the estimated effect size of the associated variant.
[47]
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in ...
Oct 26, 2021 · Mendelian randomization can be applied within the instrumental variable framework, if specific assumptions are met. Assumptions are violated if, ...
[48]
Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary ...
This project aimed to appraise the transparency in reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses that used MR-Base. We therefore examined the ...
[49]
STROBE-MR - Transparent reporting of Mendelian randomization ...
The STROBE-MR checklist contains 20 items recommended to address in reports of Mendelian randomization studies. The Statement document describes the process of ...
[50]
[PDF] Causal Language To use or not to use....
Jan 25, 2019 · Mendelian randomization association between a risk factor and an outcome is consistent with a causal effect.” “Individuals who carry the ...Missing: overstatements | Show results with:overstatements
[51]
Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations
The “randomization” in Mendelian randomization refers to the quasi-random allocation of genetic variants from parents to offspring that occurs at conception.Missing: core seminal<|control11|><|separator|>
[52]
Triangulating Evidence through the Inclusion of Genetically Informed ...
The RCT is often considered the gold standard for causal inference, and represents the most common approach that uses study design as the basis for causal ...
[53]
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/4-186
[54]
From genome-wide association studies to Mendelian randomization
Abstract. The Mendelian randomization approach is an epidemiological study design incorporating genetic information into traditional epidemiological studie.
[55]
Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for ...
Mar 15, 2015 · We detail the necessary steps for conducting Mendelian randomization investigations using published data, and present novel statistical methods.
[56]
effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression
The approach provides a sensitivity analysis for the robustness of the findings from a Mendelian randomization investigation. Mendelian randomization ...
[57]
Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some ... - NIH
w j ′ = γ ^ j 2 σ Y j 2 . These weights are derived from the delta method for the variance of the ratio of two random variables, and represent the reciprocal ...
[58]
Multi-ancestry Mendelian randomization of omics traits revealing ...
Our study prioritised six drug targets for COVID-19 severity, four of them showed different levels of evidence in European and African ancestries. Our study ...
[59]
https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.89.6.2861