Selection bias when inferring the effect direction in Mendelian randomization.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lutz SM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9632630 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Selection bias when inferring the effect direction in Mendelian randomization.
Lutz Sharon M SM Voorhies Kirsten K Wu Ann C AC Hokanson John J Vansteelandt Stijn S Lange Christoph C
Genetic epidemiology 20220502 5-6
Similar Datasets
Project description:Mendelian randomization (MR) is becoming more and more popular for inferring causal relationship between an exposure and a trait. Typically, instrument SNPs are selected from an exposure GWAS based on their summary statistics and the same summary statistics on the selected SNPs are used for subsequent analyses. However, this practice suffers from selection bias and can invalidate MR methods, as showcased via two popular methods: the summary data-based MR (SMR) method and the two-sample MR Steiger method. The SMR method is conservative while the MR Steiger method can be either conservative or liberal. A simple and yet more powerful alternative to SMR is proposed.
| S-EPMC8027662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of genetic variants as instrumental variables - an approach known as Mendelian randomization - is a popular epidemiological method for estimating the causal effect of an exposure (phenotype, biomarker, risk factor) on a disease or health-related outcome from observational data. Instrumental variables must satisfy strong, often untestable assumptions, which means that finding good genetic instruments among a large list of potential candidates is challenging. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that many genetic variants influence more than one phenotype through different causal pathways, a phenomenon called horizontal pleiotropy. This leads to errors not only in estimating the magnitude of the causal effect but also in inferring the direction of the putative causal link. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian approach called BayesMR that is a generalization of the Mendelian randomization technique in which we allow for pleiotropic effects and, crucially, for the possibility of reverse causation. The output of the method is a posterior distribution over the target causal effect, which provides an immediate and easily interpretable measure of the uncertainty in the estimation. More importantly, we use Bayesian model averaging to determine how much more likely the inferred direction is relative to the reverse direction.
| S-EPMC7221461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelection bias affects Mendelian randomization investigations when selection into the study sample depends on a collider between the genetic variant and confounders of the risk factor-outcome association. However, the relative importance of selection bias for Mendelian randomization compared with other potential biases is unclear.MethodsWe performed an extensive simulation study to assess the impact of selection bias on a typical Mendelian randomization investigation. We considered inverse probability weighting as a potential method for reducing selection bias. Finally, we investigated whether selection bias may explain a recently reported finding that lipoprotein(a) is not a causal risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in individuals with previous coronary heart disease.ResultsSelection bias had a severe impact on bias and Type 1 error rates in our simulation study, but only when selection effects were large. For moderate effects of the risk factor on selection, bias was generally small and Type 1 error rate inflation was not considerable. Inverse probability weighting ameliorated bias when the selection model was correctly specified, but increased bias when selection bias was moderate and the model was misspecified. In the example of lipoprotein(a), strong genetic associations and strong confounder effects on selection mean the reported null effect on cardiovascular mortality could plausibly be explained by selection bias.ConclusionsSelection bias can adversely affect Mendelian randomization investigations, but its impact is likely to be less than other biases. Selection bias is substantial when the effects of the risk factor and confounders on selection are particularly large.
| S-EPMC6659463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Selection bias is increasingly acknowledged as a limitation of Mendelian randomization (MR). However, few methods exist to assess this issue. We focus on two plausible causal structures relevant to MR studies and illustrate the data-generating process underlying selection bias via simulation studies. We conceptualize the use of control exposures to validate MR estimates derived from selected samples by detecting potential selection bias and reproducing the exposure-outcome association of primary interest based on subject matter knowledge. We discuss the criteria for choosing the control exposures. We apply the proposal in an MR study investigating the potential effect of higher transferrin with stroke (including ischemic and cardioembolic stroke) using transferrin saturation and iron status as control exposures. Theoretically, selection bias affects associations of genetic instruments with the outcome in selected samples, violating the exclusion-restriction assumption and distorting MR estimates. Our applied example showing inconsistent effects of genetically predicted higher transferrin and higher transferrin saturation on stroke suggests the potential selection bias. Furthermore, the expected associations of genetically predicted higher iron status on stroke and longevity indicate no systematic selection bias. The routine use of control exposures in MR studies provides a valuable tool to validate estimated causal effects. Like the applied example, an antagonist, decoy, or exposure with similar biological activity as the exposure of primary interest, which has the same potential selection bias sources as the exposure-outcome association, is suggested as the control exposure. An additional or a validated control exposure with a well-established association with the outcome is also recommended to explore possible systematic selection bias.
| S-EPMC8652250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The number of Mendelian randomization analyses including large numbers of genetic variants is rapidly increasing. This is due to the proliferation of genome-wide association studies, and the desire to obtain more precise estimates of causal effects. However, some genetic variants may not be valid instrumental variables, in particular due to them having more than one proximal phenotypic correlate (pleiotropy).We view Mendelian randomization with multiple instruments as a meta-analysis, and show that bias caused by pleiotropy can be regarded as analogous to small study bias. Causal estimates using each instrument can be displayed visually by a funnel plot to assess potential asymmetry. Egger regression, a tool to detect small study bias in meta-analysis, can be adapted to test for bias from pleiotropy, and the slope coefficient from Egger regression provides an estimate of the causal effect. Under the assumption that the association of each genetic variant with the exposure is independent of the pleiotropic effect of the variant (not via the exposure), Egger's test gives a valid test of the null causal hypothesis and a consistent causal effect estimate even when all the genetic variants are invalid instrumental variables.We illustrate the use of this approach by re-analysing two published Mendelian randomization studies of the causal effect of height on lung function, and the causal effect of blood pressure on coronary artery disease risk. The conservative nature of this approach is illustrated with these examples.An adaption of Egger regression (which we call MR-Egger) can detect some violations of the standard instrumental variable assumptions, and provide an effect estimate which is not subject to these violations. The approach provides a sensitivity analysis for the robustness of the findings from a Mendelian randomization investigation.
| S-EPMC4469799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mendelian randomization (MR) has been increasingly used to strengthen causal inference in observational epidemiology. Methodological developments in the field allow detecting and/or adjusting for different potential sources of bias, mainly bias due to horizontal pleiotropy (or "off-target" genetic effects). Another potential source of bias is nonrandom matching between spouses (i.e., assortative mating). In this study, we performed simulations to investigate the bias caused in MR by assortative mating. We found that bias can arise due to either cross-trait assortative mating (i.e., assortment on two phenotypes, such as highly educated women selecting taller men) or single-trait assortative mating (i.e., assortment on a single phenotype), even if the exposure and outcome phenotypes are not the phenotypes under assortment. The simulations also indicate that bias due to assortative mating accumulates over generations and that MR methods robust to horizontal pleiotropy are also affected by this bias. Finally, we show that genetic data from mother-father-offspring trios can be used to detect and correct for this bias.
| S-EPMC6221130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mendelian randomization (MR) is an instrumental variable approach used to infer causal relationships between exposures and outcomes and can apply to summary data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Since GWAS summary statistics are subject to estimation errors, most existing MR approaches suffer from measurement error bias, whose scale and direction are influenced by weak instrumental variables and GWAS sample overlap, respectively. We introduce MRBEE (MR using Bias-corrected Estimating Equation), a novel multivariable MR method capable of simultaneously removing measurement error bias and identifying horizontal pleiotropy. In simulations, we showed that MRBEE is capable of effectively removing measurement error bias in the presence of weak instrumental variables and sample overlap. In two independent real data analyses, we discovered that the causal effect of BMI on coronary artery disease risk is entirely mediated by blood pressure, and that existing MR methods may underestimate the causal effect of cannabis use disorder on schizophrenia risk compared to MRBEE. MRBEE possesses significant potential for advancing genetic research by providing a valuable tool to study causality between multiple risk factors and disease outcomes, particularly as a large number of GWAS summary statistics become publicly available.
| S-EPMC10103949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mendelian Randomization (MR) is a widely embraced approach to assess causality in epidemiological studies. Two-stage least squares (2SLS) method is a predominant technique in MR analysis. However, it can lead to biased estimates when instrumental variables (IVs) are weak. Moreover, the issue of the winner's curse could emerge when utilizing the same dataset for both IV selection and causal effect estimation, leading to biased estimates of causal effects and high false positives. Focusing on one-sample MR analysis, this paper introduces a novel method termed Mendelian Randomization with adaptive Sample-sPLitting with cross-fitting InstrumenTs (MR-SPLIT), designed to address bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs, under the 2SLS IV regression framework. We show that the MR-SPLIT estimator is more efficient than its counterpart cross-fitting MR (CFMR) estimator. Additionally, we introduce a multiple sample-splitting technique to enhance the robustness of the method. We conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of our method with its counterparts. The results underscored its superiority in bias reduction, effective type I error control, and increased power. We further demonstrate its utility through the application of a real-world dataset. Our study underscores the importance of addressing bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs in one-sample MR analyses and provides a robust solution to the challenge.
| S-EPMC11410202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mendelian randomization analyses are often performed using summarized data. The causal estimate from a one-sample analysis (in which data are taken from a single data source) with weak instrumental variables is biased in the direction of the observational association between the risk factor and outcome, whereas the estimate from a two-sample analysis (in which data on the risk factor and outcome are taken from non-overlapping datasets) is less biased and any bias is in the direction of the null. When using genetic consortia that have partially overlapping sets of participants, the direction and extent of bias are uncertain. In this paper, we perform simulation studies to investigate the magnitude of bias and Type 1 error rate inflation arising from sample overlap. We consider both a continuous outcome and a case-control setting with a binary outcome. For a continuous outcome, bias due to sample overlap is a linear function of the proportion of overlap between the samples. So, in the case of a null causal effect, if the relative bias of the one-sample instrumental variable estimate is 10% (corresponding to an F parameter of 10), then the relative bias with 50% sample overlap is 5%, and with 30% sample overlap is 3%. In a case-control setting, if risk factor measurements are only included for the control participants, unbiased estimates are obtained even in a one-sample setting. However, if risk factor data on both control and case participants are used, then bias is similar with a binary outcome as with a continuous outcome. Consortia releasing publicly available data on the associations of genetic variants with continuous risk factors should provide estimates that exclude case participants from case-control samples.
| S-EPMC5082560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate the causal effect of a risk factor on an outcome. A collider is a variable influenced by two or more other variables. Naive calculation of MR estimates in strata of the population defined by a collider, such as a variable affected by the risk factor, can result in collider bias. We propose an approach that allows MR estimation in strata of the population while avoiding collider bias. This approach constructs a new variable, the residual collider, as the residual from regression of the collider on the genetic instrument, and then calculates causal estimates in strata defined by quantiles of the residual collider. Estimates stratified on the residual collider will typically have an equivalent interpretation to estimates stratified on the collider, but they are not subject to collider bias. We apply the approach in several simulation scenarios considering different characteristics of the collider variable and strengths of the instrument. We then apply the proposed approach to investigate the causal effect of smoking on bladder cancer in strata of the population defined by bodyweight. The new approach generated unbiased estimates in all the simulation settings. In the applied example, we observed a trend in the stratum-specific MR estimates at different bodyweight levels that suggested stronger effects of smoking on bladder cancer among individuals with lower bodyweight. The proposed approach can be used to perform MR studying heterogeneity among subgroups of the population while avoiding collider bias.
| S-EPMC9329404 | biostudies-literature