In epidemiological research, the causal effect of a modifiable phenotype or exposure on a disease is often of public health interest. Randomized controlled trials to investigate this effect are not always possible and inferences based on observational data can be confounded. However, if we know of a gene closely linked to the phenotype without direct effect on the disease, it can often be reasonably assumed that the gene is not itself associated with any confounding factors - a phenomenon called Mendelian randomization. These properties define an instrumental variable and allow estimation of the causal effect, despite the confounding, under certain model restrictions. In this paper, we present a formal framework for causal inference based on Mendelian randomization and suggest using directed acyclic graphs to check model assumptions by visual inspection. This framework allows us to address limitations of the Mendelian randomization technique that have often been overlooked in the medical literature.

Nuala Sheehan and colleagues describe how Mendelian randomization provides an alternative way of dealing with the problems of observational studies, especially confounding.

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are becoming increasingly popular as they seem to offer the only viable way to overcome the problem of unobserved confounding in observational studies. However, some attention has to be paid to the details, as not all such methods target the same causal parameters and some rely on more restrictive parametric assumptions than others. We therefore discuss and contrast the most common IV approaches with relevance to typical applications in observational epidemiology. Further, we illustrate and compare the asymptotic bias of these IV estimators when underlying assumptions are violated in a numerical study. One of our conclusions is that all IV methods encounter problems in the presence of effect modification by unobserved confounders. Since this can never be ruled out for sure, we recommend that practical applications of IV estimators be accompanied routinely by a sensitivity analysis.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-STS316 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

In this paper, the authors describe different instrumental variable (IV) estimators of causal risk ratios and odds ratios with particular attention to methods that can handle continuously measured exposures. The authors present this discussion in the context of a Mendelian randomization analysis of the effect of body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) on the risk of asthma at age 7 years (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, 1991-1992). The authors show that the multiplicative structural mean model (MSMM) and the multiplicative generalized method of moments (MGMM) estimator produce identical estimates of the causal risk ratio. In the example, MSMM and MGMM estimates suggested an inverse relation between BMI and asthma but other IV estimates suggested a positive relation, although all estimates had wide confidence intervals. An interaction between the associations of BMI and fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) genotype with asthma explained the different directions of the different estimates, and a simulation study supported the observation that MSMM/MGMM estimators are negatively correlated with the other estimators when such an interaction is present. The authors conclude that point estimates from various IV methods can differ in practical applications. Based on the theoretical properties of the estimators, structural mean models make weaker assumptions than other IV estimators and can therefore be expected to be consistent in a wider range of situations.

A new class of graphical models capturing the dependence structure of events that occur in time is proposed. The graphs represent so-called local independencies, meaning that the intensities of certain types of events are independent of some (but not necessarilly all) events in the past. This dynamic concept of independence is asymmetric, similar to Granger non-causality, so that the corresponding local independence graphs differ considerably from classical graphical models. Hence a new notion of graph separation, called δ-separation, is introduced and implications for the underlying model as well as for likelihood inference are explored. Benefits regarding facilitation of reasoning about and understanding of dynamic dependencies as well as computational simplifications are discussed.

When estimating the effect of treatment on HIV using data from observational studies, standard methods may produce biased estimates due to the presence of time-dependent confounders. Such confounding can be present when a covariate, affected by past exposure, is both a predictor of the future exposure and the outcome. One example is the CD4 cell count, being a marker for disease progression for HIV patients, but also a marker for treatment initiation and influenced by treatment. Fitting a marginal structural model (MSM) using inverse probability weights is one way to give appropriate adjustment for this type of confounding. In this paper we study a simple and intuitive approach to estimate similar treatment effects, using observational data to mimic several randomized controlled trials. Each 'trial' is constructed based on individuals starting treatment in a certain time interval. An overall effect estimate for all such trials is found using composite likelihood inference. The method offers an alternative to the use of inverse probability of treatment weights, which is unstable in certain situations. The estimated parameter is not identical to the one of an MSM, it is conditioned on covariate values at the start of each mimicked trial. This allows the study of questions that are not that easily addressed fitting an MSM. The analysis can be performed as a stratified weighted Cox analysis on the joint data set of all the constructed trials, where each trial is one stratum. The model is applied to data from the Swiss HIV cohort study.

No abstract

In the context of causal mediation analysis, prevailing notions of direct and indirect effects are based on nested counterfactuals. These can be problematic regarding interpretation and identifiability especially when the mediator is a time-dependent process and the outcome is survival or, more generally, a time-to-event outcome. We propose and discuss an alternative definition of mediated effects that does not suffer from these problems, and is more transparent than the current alternatives. Our proposal is based on the extended graphical approach of Robins and Richardson (in: Shrout (ed) Causality and psychopathology: finding the determinants of disorders and their cures, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011), where treatment is decomposed into different components, or aspects, along different causal paths corresponding to real world mechanisms. This is an interesting alternative motivation for any causal mediation setting, but especially for survival outcomes. We give assumptions allowing identifiability of such alternative mediated effects leading to the familiar mediation g-formula (Robins in Math Model 7:1393, 1986); this implies that a number of available methods of estimation can be applied.