Simulated sample splitting approach to address biases due to instrument selection and participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian Randomization studies
Forde, A.; Hemani, G.; Ferguson, J.
Show abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a popular statistical technique that uses genetic variants to explore causal relationships in observational epidemiology. Summary-level MR, the most common form, relies on published GWAS summary statistics to estimate causal effects between exposures and outcomes. However, empirical analyses tend to ignore issues relating to Winners Curse of instrument effects, weak instrument bias and sample overlap. Our simulations and empirical examinations using the UK Biobank indicate that such mechanisms can induce substantial bias in routine MR approaches. We propose MR Simulated Sample Splitting (MR-SimSS), a novel method that corrects this bias requiring no additional data beyond the exposure and outcome GWAS summary statistics under examination. It operates by simulating statistically independent sets of summary statistics, analogous to what would be produced by splitting the individual-level data into independent subsets, which can then be plugged into existing pleiotropy-robust MR methods. With sufficient instrument variants, MR-SimSS is robust to a range of sample overlap scenarios, providing a practical and modular solution to Winners Curse and weak instrument bias. Author summaryA central challenge in epidemiology is determining whether an observed association reflects a true cause- and-effect relationship. Mendelian randomization (MR) addresses this by using genetic variants as natural experiments to test whether a particular trait or exposure genuinely influences disease risk. However, when the same genetic data are used both to select and to estimate genetic instruments, MR results can become biased due to a phenomenon known as the Winners Curse. This problem, along with weak instruments and sample overlap between datasets, can distort causal estimates even in large studies. We introduce MR Simulated Sample Splitting (MR-SimSS), a new framework that overcomes these issues using only publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics. MR-SimSS works by statistically simulating independent subsets of the data, without requiring access to individual-level information, allowing existing MR methods to be applied without bias. Through extensive simulations and analyses using UK Biobank data, we show that MR-SimSS provides more accurate and reliable causal estimates, offering a practical tool for robust causal inference in modern genetic epidemiology.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Simultaneous estimation of bi-directional causal effects and heritable confounding from GWAS summary statistics 97%
- Causal mediation analysis for time-varying heritable risk factors with Mendelian Randomization 96%
- Accounting for genetic effect heterogeneity in fine-mapping and improving power to detect gene-environment interactions with SharePro 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Methods for Mendelian Randomization Using Realistic Simulations and an Analysis of 38 Biomarkers for Risk of Type-2 Diabetes 97%
- 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 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assumptions about frequency-dependent architectures of complex traits bias measures of functional enrichment 94%
- Identity-by-descent mapping using multi-individual IBD with genome-wide multiple testing adjustment 94%
- Rare variants association testing for a binary outcome when pooling individual level data from heterogeneous studies 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.