Mind the gap: characterizing bias due to population mismatch in two-sample Mendelian randomization
Li, J.; Morrison, J.
Show abstract
1Mendelian randomization (MR) is a statistical method for estimating causal effects using genetic variants as instrumental variables. In two sample MR (2SMR), different study samples are used to estimate genetic associations with the exposure and outcome. For valid inference, these studies must include individuals from the same population. Using studies from different populations may bias the MR estimate due to differences in variant-exposure associations resulting from differences in linkage disequilibrium or genetic effects on the exposure trait. We show that violation of the same-population assumption leads to bias in the causal estimate towards zero on average, and does not increase the rate of false positives when using the most common MR study design. We verify this result in a broad survey of MR estimates, comparing estimates made with matching and mismatching populations across 546 trait pairs measured in 2-7 ancestries. We find that most population-mismatched estimates are attenuated towards zero compared to their corresponding population-matched estimates, and that increasing genetic distance between study populations is associated with greater shrinkage. We observe bias even when mismatched populations have the same continental ancestry. However, we also find that, in some cases, using a larger exposure study with mismatching ancestry can improve power by dramatically increasing precision. These results show that even intra-continental population mismatch can bias MR estimates, but also suggests there is potential to improve the power of MR in understudied populations by properly leveraging larger, mismatching study populations.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Multi-Ancestry Genome-Wide Association Methods: Statistical Power, Population Structure, and Practical Implications 96%
- Bayesian model comparison for rare variant association studies 95%
- CADET: Enhanced transcriptome-wide association analyses in admixed samples using eQTL summary data 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Bias in two-sample Mendelian randomization when using heritable covariable-adjusted summary associations 95%
- An empirical investigation into the impact of winner's curse on estimates from Mendelian randomization 92%
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Methods for Mendelian Randomization Using Realistic Simulations and an Analysis of 38 Biomarkers for Risk of Type-2 Diabetes 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Population-specific causal disease effect sizes in functionally important regions impacted by selection 95%
- Theoretical and empirical quantification of the accuracy of polygenic scores in ancestry divergent populations 95%
- A novel Mendelian randomization method identifies causal relationships between gene expression and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Hierarchical Approach Using Marginal Summary Statistics for Multiple Intermediates in a Mendelian Randomization or Transcriptome Analysis 94%
- Analyses using multiple imputation need to consider missing data in auxiliary variables 91%
- A structural mean modelling Mendelian randomization approach to investigate the lifecourse effect of adiposity: applied and methodological considerations 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identity-by-descent mapping using multi-individual IBD with genome-wide multiple testing adjustment 94%
- GxE PRS: Genotype-environment interaction in polygenic risk score models for quantitative and binary traits 92%
- Rare variants association testing for a binary outcome when pooling individual level data from heterogeneous studies 91%
"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.