Dataset Information

Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption.

ABSTRACT: 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 require an approximation for the variance, or equivalently the inverse-variance weight, of each ratio estimate. We show that the most popular 'first-order' weights can lead to an inflation in the chances of detecting heterogeneity when in fact it is not present. Conversely, ostensibly more accurate 'second-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 first- and second-order weights in terms of heterogeneity quantification. Modified weights are also shown to remove the phenomenon of regression dilution bias in MR estimates obtained from weak instruments, unlike those obtained using first- and second-order weights. However, with small numbers of weak instruments, this comes at the cost of a reduction in estimate precision and power to detect a causal effect compared with first-order weighting. Moreover, first-order weights always furnish unbiased estimates and preserve the type I error rate under the causal null. 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 accurately quantifying heterogeneity and detecting outliers in the presence of weak instruments. Modified weights also have an important role to play in terms of causal estimation (in tandem with first-order weights) but further research is required to understand their strengths and weaknesses in specific settings.

SUBMITTER: Bowden J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6659376 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption.

Bowden Jack J Del Greco M Fabiola F Minelli Cosetta C Zhao Qingyuan Q Lawlor Debbie A DA Sheehan Nuala A NA Thompson John J Davey Smith George G

International journal of epidemiology 20190601 3

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>Cau ...[more]

PMID: 30561657

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:data furnishing a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study are often visualized with the aid of a scatter plot, in which single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-outcome associations are plotted against the SNP-exposure associations to provide an immediate picture of the causal-effect estimate for each individual variant. It is also convenient to overlay the standard inverse-variance weighted (IVW) estimate of causal effect as a fitted slope, to see whether an individual SNP provides evidence that supports, or conflicts with, the overall consensus. Unfortunately, the traditional scatter plot is not the most appropriate means to achieve this aim whenever SNP-outcome associations are estimated with varying degrees of precision and this is reflected in the analysis. Methods:We propose instead to use a small modification of the scatter plot-the Galbraith Radial plot-for the presentation of data and results from an MR study, which enjoys many advantages over the original method. On a practical level, it removes the need to recode the genetic data and enables a more straightforward detection of outliers and influential data points. Its use extends beyond the purely aesthetic, however, to suggest a more general modelling framework to operate within when conducting an MR study, including a new form of MR-Egger regression. Results:We illustrate the methods using data from a two-sample MR study to probe the causal effect of systolic blood pressure on coronary heart disease risk, allowing for the possible effects of pleiotropy. The Radial plot is shown to aid the detection of a single outlying variant that is responsible for large differences between IVW and MR-Egger regression estimates. Several additional plots are also proposed for informative data visualization. Conclusions:The Radial plot should be considered in place of the scatter plot for visualizing, analysing and interpreting data from a two-sample summary data MR study. Software is provided to help facilitate its use.

Project description:BackgroundTwo-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis.MethodsWe created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers.ResultsIn the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform.ConclusionsThe quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.

Dataset Information

Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption.

Publications

Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets