The global randomization test: A Mendelian randomization falsification test for the exclusion restriction assumption
Millard, L. A. C.; Davey Smith, G.; Tilling, K.
Show abstract
Mendelian randomization may give biased causal estimates if the instrument affects the outcome not solely via the exposure of interest (violating the exclusion restriction assumption). We demonstrate use of a global randomization test as a falsification test for the exclusion restriction assumption. Using simulations, we explored the statistical power of the randomization test to detect an association between a genetic instrument and a covariate set due to a) selection bias or b) horizontal pleiotropy, compared to three approaches examining associations with individual covariates: i) Bonferroni correction for the number of covariates, and ii) correction for the effective number of independent covariates and iii) an r2 permutation-based approach. We conducted proof-of-principle analyses in UK Biobank, using CRP as the exposure and coronary heart disease (CHD) as the outcome. In simulations, power of the randomization test was higher than the other approaches for detecting selection bias when the correlation between the covariates was low (R2< 0.1), and at least as powerful as the other approaches across all simulated horizontal pleiotropy scenarios. In our applied example, we found strong evidence of selection bias using all approaches (e.g., global randomization test p<0.002). We identified 51 of the 58 CRP genetic variants as horizontally pleiotropic, and estimated effects of CRP on CHD attenuated somewhat to the null when excluding these from the genetic risk score (OR=0.956 [95% CI: 0.918, 0.996] versus 0.970 [95% CI: 0.900, 1.046] per 1-unit higher log CRP levels). The global randomization test can be a useful addition to the MR researcher s toolkit.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Welch-weighted Egger regression reduces false positives due to correlated pleiotropy in Mendelian randomization 98%
- Benchmarking Mendelian Randomization methods for causal inference using genome-wide association study summary statistics 97%
- A novel and efficient machine learning Mendelian randomization estimator applied to predict the safety and efficacy of sclerostin inhibition 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Bias in two-sample Mendelian randomization when using heritable covariable-adjusted summary associations 96%
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Methods for Mendelian Randomization Using Realistic Simulations and an Analysis of 38 Biomarkers for Risk of Type-2 Diabetes 96%
- Estimation of time-varying causal effects with multivariable Mendelian randomization: some cautionary notes 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identity-by-descent mapping using multi-individual IBD with genome-wide multiple testing adjustment 95%
- GxE PRS: Genotype-environment interaction in polygenic risk score models for quantitative and binary traits 95%
- Assumptions about frequency-dependent architectures of complex traits bias measures of functional enrichment 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.