Back

A latent outcome variable approach for Mendelian randomization using the expectation maximization algorithm

Amente, L. D.; Mills, N. T.; Le, T. D.; Hypponen, E.; Lee, S. H.

2024-08-26 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.08.24.24312485 medRxiv
Show abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a widely used tool to uncover causal relationships between exposures and outcomes. However, existing MR methods can suffer from inflated type I error rates and biased causal effects in the presence of invalid instruments. Our proposed method enhances MR analysis by augmenting latent phenotypes of the outcome, explicitly disentangling horizontal and vertical pleiotropy effects. This allows for explicit assessment of the exclusion restriction assumption and iteratively refines causal estimates through the expectation-maximization algorithm. This approach offers a unique and potentially more precise framework compared to existing MR methods. We rigorously evaluate our method against established MR approaches across diverse simulation scenarios, including balanced and directional pleiotropy, as well as violations of the Instrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect (InSIDE) assumption. Our findings consistently demonstrate superior performance of our method in terms of controlling type I error rates, bias, and robustness to genetic confounding. Additionally, our method facilitates testing for directional horizontal pleiotropy and outperforms MR-Egger in this regard, while also effectively testing for violations of the InSIDE assumption. We apply our method to real data, demonstrating its effectiveness compared to traditional MR methods. This analysis reveals the causal effects of body mass index (BMI) on metabolic syndrome (MetS) and a composite MetS score calculated by the weighted sum of its component factors. While the causal relationship is consistent across most methods, our proposed method shows fewer violations of the exclusion restriction assumption, especially for MetS scores where horizontal pleiotropy persists and other methods suffer from inflation.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.6%
2
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
4
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.9%
8
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.3%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.6%
10
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.4%
11
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
12
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.3%
13
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
14
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
15
Biometrics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
16
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
17
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
18
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
19
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
20
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
21
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
22
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
23
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 37%
0.6%