Back

The use of Mendelian randomization to explore the causal consequences of childhood maltreatment: consideration of assumptions and challenges

Sum, K. K.; Hughes, A. M.; Havdahl, A.; Davey Smith, G.; Howe, L. D.

2025-10-19 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.10.17.25338214
Show abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to enhance causal inference. Studies have identified genetic variants related to childhood maltreatment, but interpreting the effects of these variants or assessing the plausibility of MR assumptions is complex. We aim to investigate the feasibility of applying MR to complex social traits using the association between childhood maltreatment and mental health and behavioral outcomes as an example. We explore four potential key concerns: confounding by population phenomena, horizontal and vertical pleiotropy, reverse causality, and selection. For each concern, we demonstrate scenarios where MR studies of childhood maltreatment may be biased using DAGs and critical appraisal of previous MR analyses. For confounding by population phenomena, we further perform within-family genetic analyses in 42,101 parent-offspring trios from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) to address bias due to family-level processes since childhood maltreatment often occurs within households. Our results showed same-trait shrinkage (11% attenuation of the association between childrens polygenic risk scores of childhood maltreatment (PRSCM) and mothers report of childrens physical abuse) but not cross-trait shrinkage (childrens PRSCM and childrens mental health and behavioral outcomes) after adjusting for parental PRSCM. The lack of cross-trait shrinkage suggests that genetic variants related to childhood maltreatment may be capturing other child-level phenotypes, after adjusting for family-level processes. Mothers PRSCM were also associated with mothers own maltreatment experiences in childhood and adulthood with similar magnitudes, suggesting these genetic effects are not specific to childhood maltreatment. Due to the complexity involved in the causal chain of childhood maltreatment and it being reported, the interpretation of MR studies for childhood maltreatment is challenging. Other causal approaches should be considered for observational studies of complex social traits.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Human Genetics
based on 77 papers
Top 2%
7.6%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 58%
7.6%
3
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 28%
6.4%
4
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 2%
5.3%
5
Psychological Medicine
based on 52 papers
Top 2%
4.7%
6
Human Molecular Genetics
based on 28 papers
Top 0.3%
4.5%
7
PLOS Genetics
based on 39 papers
Top 0.5%
4.5%
8
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
based on 18 papers
Top 0.5%
3.0%
9
Genetic Epidemiology
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
3.0%
10
Nature Human Behaviour
based on 18 papers
Top 0.2%
2.8%
11
International Journal of Epidemiology
based on 65 papers
Top 2%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
12
European Journal of Human Genetics
based on 25 papers
Top 0.8%
2.4%
13
The British Journal of Psychiatry
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
14
Biological Psychiatry
based on 36 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
15
Nature Genetics
based on 72 papers
Top 6%
1.9%
16
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 11%
1.8%
17
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 31%
1.6%
18
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 18%
1.6%
19
Translational Psychiatry
based on 94 papers
Top 6%
1.6%
20
European Journal of Epidemiology
based on 36 papers
Top 1%
1.6%
21
Genes
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
22
Cell Genomics
based on 34 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Molecular Psychiatry
based on 84 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
24
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
based on 39 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Communications Biology
based on 36 papers
Top 6%
0.7%
26
Royal Society Open Science
based on 49 papers
Top 6%
0.7%
27
International Journal of Obesity
based on 17 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
28
American Journal of Psychiatry
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
29
BJPsych Open
based on 24 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Journal of Medical Genetics
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
0.7%