Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2025

Moderate Prenatal Alcohol Exposure and Quantification of Social Behavior in Adult Rats
Published on: December 14, 2014
Bounding the average causal effect in Mendelian randomisation studies with multiple proposed instruments: An
Elizabeth W Diemer1,2,3, Alexandra Havdahl4,5,6, Ole A Andreassen7
1Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Background:
As large-scale observational data become more available, caution regarding causal assumptions remains critically important. This may be especially true for Mendelian randomisation (MR), an increasingly popular approach. Point estimation in MR usually requires strong, often implausible homogeneity assumptions beyond the core instrumental conditions. Bounding, which does not require homogeneity assumptions, is infrequently applied in MR.
Objectives:
We aimed to demonstrate computing nonparametric bounds for the causal risk difference derived from multiple proposed instruments in an MR study where effect heterogeneity is expected.
Methods:
Using data from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (n = 2056) and Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n = 6216) to study the average causal effect of maternal pregnancy alcohol use on offspring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms, we proposed 11 maternal SNPs as instruments. We computed bounds assuming subsets of SNPs were jointly valid instruments, for all combinations of SNPs where the MR model was not falsified.
Results:
The MR assumptions were violated for all sets with more than 4 SNPs in one cohort and for all sets with more than 2 SNPs in the other. Bounds assuming one SNP was an individually valid instrument barely improved on assumption-free bounds. Bounds tightened as more SNPs were assumed to be jointly valid instruments, and occasionally identified directions of effect, though bounds from different sets varied.
Conclusions:
Our results suggest that, when proposing multiple instruments, bounds can contextualise plausible magnitudes and directions of effects. Computing bounds over multiple assumption sets, particularly in large, high-dimensional data, offers a means of triangulating results across different potential sources of bias within a study and may help researchers to better evaluate and emphasise which estimates are compatible with the most plausible assumptions for their specific setting.
More Related Videos
05:44Author Spotlight: Collecting the Brain and Serum from the Same Mice Fetus to Study Brain Tumor Development
Published on: May 17, 2024
19:57The Use of Trace Eyeblink Classical Conditioning to Assess Hippocampal Dysfunction in a Rat Model of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
Published on: August 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Diagnostic Criteria and Symptoms
To diagnose ADHD, symptoms must manifest before age 12 and be evident across multiple settings....
Human Genetics
The complex relationship between genetics and psychology is observable through common biological components such...
Behavioral Genetics and Its Designs
The primary methodologies used in behavior genetics include family studies, twin studies, and adoption studies, each providing unique...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Probability Laws