A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes
Abstract Background Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of epidemiology 2021-08, Vol.50 (4), p.1335-1349 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1349 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1335 |
container_title | International journal of epidemiology |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Qi, Guanghao Chatterjee, Nilanjan |
description | Abstract
Background
Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets.
Methods
We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Results
Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies.
Conclusion
The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ije/dyaa262 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_33393617</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ije/dyaa262</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2475094310</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-965063559d6a063b9831f023b583fc6a06cfe192b00f9803087fb007a55a8b53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EotvCiTvyCSGhtHYcJ_EFqaqgIBVx6d1yknHXrWMHT7LS8lP4tXibpYILki2P_D69Gc0j5A1n55wpceHu4WLYG1PW5TOy4VVdFaJu5XOyYYKxQjYNPyGniPeM8aqq1EtyIoRQoubNhvy6pH0cpwRbCOh2QGFn_GJmFwONlo4wb-OA1MZEv0EYwDsTaDJhiKP7uWILunBHExjvcHY9RTcu_lFCmsF88zF-jw4PlqKlnYujSQ-QVuPk8OGgzPsJaEkHZzqYAV-RF9Z4hNfH94zcfv50e_WluPl-_fXq8qboK17Ohaolq4WUaqhNLjrVCm5ZKTrZCtsf_noLXJUdY1a1eSVtY3PdGClN20lxRj6uttPSjTD0EOZkvJ6SyzPudTRO_6sEt9V3cadbWZd5kdng_dEgxR8L4KxHhz14bwLEBXVZNZKpSnCW0Q8r2qeImMA-teFMH8LUOUx9DDPTb_-e7In9k14G3q1AXKb_Ov0GauKsMQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2475094310</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals Current</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Qi, Guanghao ; Chatterjee, Nilanjan</creator><creatorcontrib>Qi, Guanghao ; Chatterjee, Nilanjan</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Background
Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets.
Methods
We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Results
Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies.
Conclusion
The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0300-5771</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-3685</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyaa262</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33393617</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Biomarkers ; Causality ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - epidemiology ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - genetics ; Genome-Wide Association Study ; Humans ; Mendelian Randomization Analysis ; Methods ; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide</subject><ispartof>International journal of epidemiology, 2021-08, Vol.50 (4), p.1335-1349</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-965063559d6a063b9831f023b583fc6a06cfe192b00f9803087fb007a55a8b53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-965063559d6a063b9831f023b583fc6a06cfe192b00f9803087fb007a55a8b53</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9060-008X ; 0000-0002-8085-4748</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1578,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33393617$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Qi, Guanghao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chatterjee, Nilanjan</creatorcontrib><title>A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes</title><title>International journal of epidemiology</title><addtitle>Int J Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Abstract
Background
Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets.
Methods
We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Results
Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies.
Conclusion
The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.</description><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Causality</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - epidemiology</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - genetics</subject><subject>Genome-Wide Association Study</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mendelian Randomization Analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide</subject><issn>0300-5771</issn><issn>1464-3685</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EotvCiTvyCSGhtHYcJ_EFqaqgIBVx6d1yknHXrWMHT7LS8lP4tXibpYILki2P_D69Gc0j5A1n55wpceHu4WLYG1PW5TOy4VVdFaJu5XOyYYKxQjYNPyGniPeM8aqq1EtyIoRQoubNhvy6pH0cpwRbCOh2QGFn_GJmFwONlo4wb-OA1MZEv0EYwDsTaDJhiKP7uWILunBHExjvcHY9RTcu_lFCmsF88zF-jw4PlqKlnYujSQ-QVuPk8OGgzPsJaEkHZzqYAV-RF9Z4hNfH94zcfv50e_WluPl-_fXq8qboK17Ohaolq4WUaqhNLjrVCm5ZKTrZCtsf_noLXJUdY1a1eSVtY3PdGClN20lxRj6uttPSjTD0EOZkvJ6SyzPudTRO_6sEt9V3cadbWZd5kdng_dEgxR8L4KxHhz14bwLEBXVZNZKpSnCW0Q8r2qeImMA-teFMH8LUOUx9DDPTb_-e7In9k14G3q1AXKb_Ov0GauKsMQ</recordid><startdate>20210830</startdate><enddate>20210830</enddate><creator>Qi, Guanghao</creator><creator>Chatterjee, Nilanjan</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9060-008X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8085-4748</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210830</creationdate><title>A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes</title><author>Qi, Guanghao ; Chatterjee, Nilanjan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-965063559d6a063b9831f023b583fc6a06cfe192b00f9803087fb007a55a8b53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Causality</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - epidemiology</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - genetics</topic><topic>Genome-Wide Association Study</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mendelian Randomization Analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Qi, Guanghao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chatterjee, Nilanjan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International journal of epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Qi, Guanghao</au><au>Chatterjee, Nilanjan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes</atitle><jtitle>International journal of epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2021-08-30</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1335</spage><epage>1349</epage><pages>1335-1349</pages><issn>0300-5771</issn><eissn>1464-3685</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Background
Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets.
Methods
We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Results
Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies.
Conclusion
The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>33393617</pmid><doi>10.1093/ije/dyaa262</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9060-008X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8085-4748</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0300-5771 |
ispartof | International journal of epidemiology, 2021-08, Vol.50 (4), p.1335-1349 |
issn | 0300-5771 1464-3685 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_33393617 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals Current; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Biomarkers Causality Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - epidemiology Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - genetics Genome-Wide Association Study Humans Mendelian Randomization Analysis Methods Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide |
title | A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T14%3A12%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comprehensive%20evaluation%20of%20methods%20for%20Mendelian%20randomization%20using%20realistic%20simulations%20and%20an%20analysis%20of%2038%20biomarkers%20for%20risk%20of%20type%202%20diabetes&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20epidemiology&rft.au=Qi,%20Guanghao&rft.date=2021-08-30&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1335&rft.epage=1349&rft.pages=1335-1349&rft.issn=0300-5771&rft.eissn=1464-3685&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ije/dyaa262&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2475094310%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2475094310&rft_id=info:pmid/33393617&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ije/dyaa262&rfr_iscdi=true |