Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies

被引:1652
|
作者
Burgess, Stephen [1 ]
Thompson, Simon G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Forvie Site, Inst Publ Hlth, MRC Biostat Unit, Cambridge CB2 OSR, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Mendelian randomization; instrumental variables; causal inference; weak instruments; bias; meta-analysis; C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; VARIABLES; METAANALYSIS; RELEVANCE; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1093/ije/dyr036
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background Mendelian randomization is used to test and estimate the magnitude of a causal effect of a phenotype on an outcome by using genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs). Estimates of association from IV analysis are biased in the direction of the confounded, observational association between phenotype and outcome. The magnitude of the bias depends on the F-statistic for the strength of relationship between IVs and phenotype. We seek to develop guidelines for the design and analysis of Mendelian randomization studies to minimize bias. Methods IV analysis was performed on simulated and real data to investigate the effect on bias of size of study, number and choice of instruments and method of analysis. Results Bias is shown to increase as the expected F-statistic decreases, and can be reduced by using parsimonious models of genetic association (i.e. not over-parameterized) and by adjusting for measured covariates. Using data from a single study, the causal estimate of a unit increase in log-transformed C-reactive protein on fibrinogen (mu mol/l) is shown to increase from -0.005 (P = 0.99) to 0.792 (P = 0.00003) due to injudicious choice of instrument. Moreover, when the observed F-statistic is larger than expected in a particular study, the causal estimate is more biased towards the observational association and its standard error is smaller. This correlation between causal estimate and standard error introduces a second source of bias into meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies. Bias can be alleviated in meta-analyses by using individual level data and by pooling genetic effects across studies. Conclusions Weak instrument bias is of practical importance for the design and analysis of Mendelian randomization studies. Post hoc choice of instruments, genetic models or data based on measured F-statistics can exacerbate bias. In particular, the commonly cited rule of thumb that F > 10 avoids bias in IV analysis is misleading.
引用
收藏
页码:755 / 764
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments
    Burgess, Stephen
    Thompson, Simon G.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2011, 30 (11) : 1312 - 1323
  • [2] The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization
    Davies, Neil M.
    Scholder, Stephanie von Hinke Kessler
    Farbmacher, Helmut
    Burgess, Stephen
    Windmeijer, Frank
    Smith, George Davey
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2015, 34 (03) : 454 - 468
  • [3] Using instruments for selection to adjust for selection bias in Mendelian randomization
    Gkatzionis, Apostolos
    Tilling, Kate
    [J]. HUMAN HEREDITY, 2022, VOL. (SUPPL 1) : 23 - 23
  • [4] Using instruments for selection to adjust for selection bias in Mendelian randomization
    Gkatzionis, Apostolos
    Tchetgen, Eric J. Tchetgen
    Heron, Jon
    Northstone, Kate
    Tilling, Kate
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2024,
  • [5] Avoiding collider bias in Mendelian randomization when performing stratified analyses
    Coscia, Claudia
    Gill, Dipender
    Benitez, Raquel
    Perez, Teresa
    Malats, Nuria
    Burgess, Stephen
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 37 (07) : 671 - 682
  • [6] Avoiding collider bias in Mendelian randomization when performing stratified analyses
    Claudia Coscia
    Dipender Gill
    Raquel Benítez
    Teresa Pérez
    Núria Malats
    Stephen Burgess
    [J]. European Journal of Epidemiology, 2022, 37 : 671 - 682
  • [7] Correction for Sample Overlap, Winner's Curse and Weak Instruments Bias in Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization
    Ninon, Mounier
    Zoltan, Kutalik
    [J]. HUMAN HEREDITY, 2021, 85 (02) : 86 - 86
  • [8] Correction for sample overlap, Winner's curse and weak-instruments bias in two-sample Mendelian Randomization
    Mounier, Ninon
    Kutalik, Zoltan
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2022, 30 (SUPPL 1) : 492 - 492
  • [9] Using Genetic Instruments to Estimate Interactions in Mendelian Randomization Studies
    North, Teri-Louise
    Davies, Neil M.
    Harrison, Sean
    Carter, Alice R.
    Hemani, Gibran
    Sanderson, Eleanor
    Tilling, Kate
    Howe, Laura D.
    [J]. EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 30 (06) : E33 - E35
  • [10] Missing Data Methods in Mendelian Randomization Studies With Multiple Instruments
    Burgess, Stephen
    Seaman, Shaun
    Lawlor, Debbie A.
    Casas, Juan P.
    Thompson, Simon G.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 174 (09) : 1069 - 1076