Back

A framework for detecting causal effects of risk factors at an individual level based on principles of Mendelian randomization: Applications to modelling individualized effects of lipids on coronary artery disease

SHI, Y.; Xiang, Y.; YE, Y.; HE, T.; SHAM, P.-C.; So, H.-C.

2024-01-20 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.01.18.24301507
Show abstract

Mendelian Randomization (MR), a method that employs genetic variants as instruments for causal inference, has gained popularity in assessing the causal effects of risk factors. However, almost all MR studies primarily concentrate on the populations average causal effects. With the advent of precision medicine, the individualized treatment effect (ITE) is often of greater interest. For instance, certain risk factors may pose a higher risk to some individuals compared to others, and the benefits of a treatment may vary among individuals. This highlights the importance of considering individual differences in risk and treatment response. We propose a new framework that expands the concept of MR to investigate individualized causal effects. We presented several approaches for estimating Individualized Treatment Effects (ITEs) within this MR framework, primarily grounded on the principles of the"R-learner". To evaluate the existence of causal effect heterogeneity, we proposed two permutation testing methods. We employed Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) as the instrument and demonstrated that the removal of potentially pleiotropic SNPs could enhance the accuracy of ITE estimates. The validity of our approach was substantiated through comprehensive simulations. We applied our framework to study the individualized causal effect of various lipid traits, including Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C), High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C), Triglycerides (TG), and Total Cholesterol (TC), on the risk of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) using data from the UK Biobank. Our findings indicate that an elevated level of LDL-C is causally linked to increased CAD risks, with the effect demonstrating significant heterogeneity. Similar results were observed for TC. We also revealed clinical factors contributing to the heterogeneity of ITE based on Shapley value analysis. Furthermore, we identified clinical factors contributing to the heterogeneity of ITEs through Shapley value analysis. This underscores the importance of individualized treatment plans in managing CAD risks.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
based on 141 papers
Top 0.9%
12.1%
2
Statistics in Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 0.1%
9.7%
3
PLOS Genetics
based on 39 papers
Top 0.1%
7.2%
4
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 30%
6.1%
5
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 64%
6.1%
6
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 4%
5.1%
7
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 0.8%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Genetic Epidemiology
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
4.3%
9
International Journal of Epidemiology
based on 65 papers
Top 2%
4.3%
10
American Journal of Epidemiology
based on 54 papers
Top 2%
2.7%
11
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 23%
2.7%
12
European Journal of Epidemiology
based on 36 papers
Top 0.8%
2.2%
13
The American Journal of Human Genetics
based on 77 papers
Top 5%
2.2%
14
Epidemiology
based on 26 papers
Top 0.7%
2.2%
15
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
based on 54 papers
Top 3%
1.5%
16
Journal of the American Heart Association
based on 92 papers
Top 10%
1.1%
17
Royal Society Open Science
based on 49 papers
Top 5%
1.1%
18
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 18%
1.1%
19
Science Advances
based on 52 papers
Top 4%
1.1%
20
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
based on 39 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Communications Biology
based on 36 papers
Top 6%
0.6%
22
Communications Medicine
based on 63 papers
Top 5%
0.6%
23
Journal of Theoretical Biology
based on 29 papers
Top 3%
0.6%
24
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
0.6%
25
Research Synthesis Methods
based on 17 papers
Top 1%
0.6%