Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption
Fabiola Del Greco M,
Debbie A. Lawlor,
Nuala A Sheehan,
George Davey Smith
Posted 05 Jul 2017
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/159442 (published DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy258)
Posted 05 Jul 2017
Background: Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization (MR) incorporating multiple genetic variants within a meta-analysis framework is a popular technique for assessing causality in epidemiology. If all genetic variants satisfy the instrumental variable (IV) and necessary modelling assumptions, then their individual ratio estimates of causal effect should be homogeneous. Observed heterogeneity signals that one or more of these assumptions could have been violated. Methods: Causal estimation and heterogeneity assessment in MR requires an approximation for the variance, or equivalently the inverse-variance weight, of each ratio estimate. We show that the most popular '1st order' weights can lead to an inflation in the chances of detecting heterogeneity when in fact it is not present. Conversely, ostensibly more accurate '2nd order' weights can dramatically increase the chances of failing to detect heterogeneity, when it is truly present. We derive modified weights to mitigate both of these adverse effects. Results: Using Monte Carlo simulations, we show that the modified weights outperform 1st and 2nd order weights in terms of heterogeneity quantification and causal estimation. The added benefit is most noticeable when the genetic instruments are weak, the causal effect is large and the number of instruments is large. We illustrate the utility of the new method using data from a recent two-sample summary data MR analysis to assess the causal role of systolic blood pressure on coronary heart disease risk. Conclusions: We propose the use of modified weights within two-sample summary data MR studies for model fitting, quantifying heterogeneity and outlier detection.
- Downloaded 1,585 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 5,372 out of 89,568
- In epidemiology: 46 out of 1,556
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 19,203 out of 89,568
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 20,262 out of 89,568
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!