Assessing and Adjusting for Selection Bias in Mendelian Randomization: the Effects of Body Mass Index, Education, and C-reactive Protein on Depression in UK Biobank

Clicks: 2
ID: 327191
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #306 of 314 articles by views in american journal of epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 314 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Depression analyses in UK Biobank may be affected by selection bias due to incomplete participation in the optional Mental Health Questionnaire. We used one-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) to assess the causal effects of BMI, educational attainment (EA), and CRP on depression, applying inverse probability of selection weighting (IPW) and the instrumental variable for selection (IVsel) to adjust for selection into the MHQ sample. Sensitivity analyses included the use of psychiatrist consultation as a proxy outcome. MR analyses indicated that higher BMI increased the risk of depression (OR=1.09 [1.05, 1.13]), EA was protective (OR=0.81 [0.75, 0.88]), and there was limited evidence that CRP affected depression (OR=1.01 [0.92, 1.10]). Estimates obtained using IPW and IVsel were broadly consistent, although with IVsel estimates closer to the null, within BMI (ORIPW = 1.10 [1.05, 1.15], ORIVsel = 1.04 [1.02, 1.06]), EA (ORIPW = 0.81 [0.74, 0.88], ORIVsel = 0.93 [0.90, 0.96]) and CRP (ORIPW = 1.03 [0.92, 1.15], ORIVsel = 1.00 [0.97, 1.04]). Proxy outcome analyses suggested similar patterns of selection bias, supporting their utility for assessing potential bias in MHQ-restricted analyses. Bias-adjustment methods and sensitivity analyses provide a framework to assess the impact of selection bias in large cohort studies with optional components.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204843864 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Yaxin Luo, Kate Tilling, Apostolos Gkatzionis
Journal american journal of epidemiology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/aje/kwag211
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.