Dataset Information

Application of the Instrumental Inequalities to a Mendelian Randomization Study With Multiple Proposed Instruments.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Investigators often support the validity of Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, an instrumental variable approach proposing genetic variants as instruments, via. subject matter knowledge. However, the instrumental variable model implies certain inequalities, offering an empirical method of falsifying (but not verifying) the underlying assumptions. Although these inequalities are said to detect only extreme assumption violations in practice, to our knowledge they have not been used in settings with multiple proposed instruments. METHODS:We applied the instrumental inequalities to an MR analysis of the effect of maternal pregnancy vitamin D on offspring psychiatric outcomes, proposing four independent maternal genetic variants as instruments. We assessed whether the proposed instruments satisfied the instrumental inequalities separately and jointly and explored the instrumental inequalities' properties via simulations. RESULTS:The instrumental inequalities were satisfied (i.e., we did not falsify the MR model) when considering each variant separately. However, the inequalities were violated when considering four variants jointly and for some combinations of two or three variants (two of 36 two-variant combinations and 18 of 24 three-variant combinations). In simulations, the inequalities detected structural biases more often when assessing proposed instruments jointly, although falsification in the absence of structural bias remained rare. CONCLUSIONS:The instrumental inequalities detected violations of the MR assumptions for genetic variants jointly proposed as instruments in our study, although the instrumental inequalities were satisfied when considering each proposed instrument separately. We discuss how investigators can assess instrumental inequalities to eliminate clearly invalid analyses in settings with many proposed instruments and provide appropriate code.

SUBMITTER: Diemer EW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6889903 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Application of the Instrumental Inequalities to a Mendelian Randomization Study With Multiple Proposed Instruments.

Diemer Elizabeth W EW Labrecque Jeremy J Tiemeier Henning H Swanson Sonja A SA

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 20200101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Investigators often support the validity of Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, an instrumental variable approach proposing genetic variants as instruments, via. subject matter knowledge. However, the instrumental variable model implies certain inequalities, offering an empirical method of falsifying (but not verifying) the underlying assumptions. Although these inequalities are said to detect only extreme assumption violations in practice, to our knowledge they have not bee ...[more]

PMID: 31790379

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs large-scale observational data become more available, caution regarding causal assumptions remains critically important. This may be especially true for Mendelian randomisation (MR), an increasingly popular approach. Point estimation in MR usually requires strong, often implausible homogeneity assumptions beyond the core instrumental conditions. Bounding, which does not require homogeneity assumptions, is infrequently applied in MR.ObjectivesWe aimed to demonstrate computing nonparametric bounds for the causal risk difference derived from multiple proposed instruments in an MR study where effect heterogeneity is expected.MethodsUsing data from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (n = 2056) and Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n = 6216) to study the average causal effect of maternal pregnancy alcohol use on offspring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms, we proposed 11 maternal SNPs as instruments. We computed bounds assuming subsets of SNPs were jointly valid instruments, for all combinations of SNPs where the MR model was not falsified.ResultsThe MR assumptions were violated for all sets with more than 4 SNPs in one cohort and for all sets with more than 2 SNPs in the other. Bounds assuming one SNP was an individually valid instrument barely improved on assumption-free bounds. Bounds tightened as more SNPs were assumed to be jointly valid instruments, and occasionally identified directions of effect, though bounds from different sets varied.ConclusionsOur results suggest that, when proposing multiple instruments, bounds can contextualise plausible magnitudes and directions of effects. Computing bounds over multiple assumption sets, particularly in large, high-dimensional data, offers a means of triangulating results across different potential sources of bias within a study and may help researchers to better evaluate and emphasise which estimates are compatible with the most plausible assumptions for their specific setting.

Project description:The 'Mendelian randomization' approach uses genotype as an instrumental variable to distinguish between causal and non-causal explanations of biomarker-disease associations. Classical methods for instrumental variable analysis are limited to linear or probit models without latent variables or missing data, rely on asymptotic approximations that are not valid for weak instruments and focus on estimation rather than hypothesis testing. We describe a Bayesian approach that overcomes these limitations, using the JAGS program to compute the log-likelihood ratio (lod score) between causal and non-causal explanations of a biomarker-disease association. To demonstrate the approach, we examined the relationship of plasma urate levels to metabolic syndrome in the ORCADES study of a Scottish population isolate, using genotype at six single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the urate transporter gene SLC2A9 as an instrumental variable. In models that allow for intra-individual variability in urate levels, the lod score favouring a non-causal over a causal explanation was 2.34. In models that do not allow for intra-individual variability, the weight of evidence against a causal explanation was weaker (lod score 1.38). We demonstrate the ability to test one of the key assumptions of instrumental variable analysis--that the effects of the instrument on outcome are mediated only through the intermediate variable--by constructing a test for residual effects of genotype on outcome, similar to the tests of 'overidentifying restrictions' developed for classical instrumental variable analysis. The Bayesian approach described here is flexible enough to deal with any instrumental variable problem, and does not rely on asymptotic approximations that may not be valid for weak instruments. The approach can easily be extended to combine information from different study designs. Statistical power calculations show that instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments will typically require combining information from moderately large cohort and cross-sectional studies of biomarkers with information from very large genetic case-control studies.

Project description:BackgroundObservational studies have reported an association between obesity, as measured by elevated body mass index (BMI), in early adulthood and risk of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, bias potentially introduced by confounding and reverse causation may have influenced these findings. Therefore, we elected to perform Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to evaluate whether genetically increased BMI is associated with an increased risk of MS.Methods and findingsEmploying a two-sample MR approach, we used summary statistics from the Genetic Investigation of Anthropometric Traits (GIANT) consortium and the International MS Genetics Consortium (IMSGC), the largest genome-wide association studies for BMI and MS, respectively (GIANT: n = 322,105; IMSGC: n = 14,498 cases and 24,091 controls). Seventy single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genome-wide significant (p < 5 x 10-8) for BMI in GIANT (n = 322,105) and were investigated for their association with MS risk in the IMSGC. The effect of each SNP on MS was weighted by its effect on BMI, and estimates were pooled to provide a summary measure for the effect of increased BMI upon risk of MS. Our results suggest that increased BMI influences MS susceptibility, where a 1 standard deviation increase in genetically determined BMI (kg/m2) increased odds of MS by 41% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.66, p = 2.7 x 10-5, I2 = 0%, 95% CI 0-29). Sensitivity analyses, including MR-Egger regression, and the weighted median approach provided no evidence of pleiotropic effects. The main study limitations are that, while these sensitivity analyses reduce the possibility that pleiotropy influenced our results, residual pleiotropy is difficult to exclude entirely.ConclusionGenetically elevated BMI is associated with risk of MS, providing evidence for a causal role for obesity in MS etiology. While obesity has been associated with many late-life outcomes, these findings suggest an important consequence of childhood and/or early adulthood obesity.

Dataset Information

Application of the Instrumental Inequalities to a Mendelian Randomization Study With Multiple Proposed Instruments.

Publications

Application of the Instrumental Inequalities to a Mendelian Randomization Study With Multiple Proposed Instruments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets