Mendelian randomization for multiple exposures and outcomes with Bayesian Directed Acyclic Graphs exploration and causal effects estimation
Zuber, V.; Cronje, H. T.; Cai, N.; Gill, D.; Bottolo, L.
Show abstract
Current Mendelian randomization (MR) methods do not reflect complex relationships among multiple exposures and outcomes as is typical for real-life applications. We introduce MrDAG the first MR method to model dependency relations within the exposures, the outcomes, and between them to improve causal effects estimation. MrDAG combines three causal inference strategies in a unified manner. It uses genetic variation as instrumental variables to account for unmeasured confounders. It performs structure learning to detect and orientate the direction of the dependencies within exposures and outcomes. Finally, interventional calculus is employed to derive principled causal effect estimates. MrDAG was motivated to unravel how lifestyle and behavioural exposures impact mental health. It highlights education and smoking as key effective points of intervention given their down-stream effects on mental health. These insights would have been difficult to delineate without modelling the causal paths between multiple exposures and outcomes at once.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Cross-GWAS coherence test at the gene and pathway level 95%
- Cross-fitted instrument: a blueprint for one-sample Mendelian Randomization 95%
- Biological networks and GWAS: comparing and combining network methods to understand the genetics of familial breast cancer susceptibility in the GENESIS study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Robust Inference of Bi-Directional Causal Relationships in Presence of Correlated Pleiotropy with GWAS Summary Data 97%
- Inferring Causal Direction Between Two Traits in the Presence of Horizontal Pleiotropy with GWAS Summary Data 96%
- MR-SPLIT: a novel method to address selection and weak instrument bias in one-sample Mendelian randomization studies 96%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.