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
  • [21] MR-SPLIT: A novel method to address selection and weak instrument bias in one-sample Mendelian randomization studies
    Shi, Ruxin
    Wang, Ling
    Burgess, Stephen
    Cui, Yuehua
    [J]. PLOS GENETICS, 2024, 20 (09):
  • [22] Severity of bias of a simple estimator of the causal odds ratio in Mendelian randomization studies
    Harbord, Roger M.
    Didelez, Vanessa
    Palmer, Tom M.
    Meng, Sha
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    Sheehan, Nuala A.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (07) : 1246 - 1258
  • [23] Credible Mendelian Randomization Studies in the Presence of Selection Bias Using Control Exposures
    Yang, Zhao
    Schooling, C. Mary
    Kwok, Man Ki
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN GENETICS, 2021, 12
  • [24] Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review
    Spiga, Francesca
    Gibson, Mark
    Dawson, Sarah
    Tilling, Kate
    Smith, George Davey
    Munafo, Marcus R.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 52 (01) : 227 - 249
  • [25] Mendelian Randomization Studies in the Elderly
    Boef, Anna G. C.
    le Cessie, Saskia
    Dekkers, Olaf M.
    [J]. EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 26 (02) : E15 - E16
  • [26] Bias in Mendelian randomization due to assortative mating
    Pires Hartwig, Fernando
    Davies, Neil Martin
    Davey Smith, George
    [J]. GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 42 (07) : 608 - 620
  • [27] Are Mendelian randomization investigations immune from bias due to reverse causation?
    Burgess, Stephen
    Swanson, Sonja A.
    Labrecque, Jeremy A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 36 (03) : 253 - 257
  • [28] Are Mendelian randomization investigations immune from bias due to reverse causation?
    Stephen Burgess
    Sonja A Swanson
    Jeremy A Labrecque
    [J]. European Journal of Epidemiology, 2021, 36 : 253 - 257
  • [29] Selection bias in the estimation of causal effects within family studies using Mendelian randomization
    Barry, Ciarrah-Jane
    Davies, Neil
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2024, 32 : 712 - 712
  • [30] Bias correction for inverse variance weighting Mendelian randomization
    Mounier, Ninon
    Kutalik, Zoltan
    [J]. HUMAN HEREDITY, 2022, VOL. (SUPPL 1) : 5 - 6