Observational epidemiological studies can mitigate genetic confounding with the genetic relatedness matrix
Patel, R. A.; Schraiber, J. G.; Pennell, M.; Edge, M. D.
Show abstract
Observational studies are commonly used in psychology and epidemiology to identify risk factors correlated with health outcomes. However, these studies are vulnerable to confounding when shared genetic variation influences both the putative risk factor and outcome. Researchers have historically controlled for this type of genetic confounding using polygenic scores, but these scores are often noisy and biased estimators of a traits genetic component. Here, we develop a method that leverages a genetic relatedness matrix (GRM) to control genetic confounding when testing for non-genetic risk factors. In simulations, we find that our method outperforms existing approaches, particularly at sample sizes that are large by the standards of much human research but smaller than datasets often used in human genetics. We also demonstrate that existing methods are susceptible to poor GWAS portability, whereas our method is inherently robust to such concerns. Finally, we apply our method to the UK Biobank to re-analyze social risk factors for health outcomes in previously understudied cohorts. Significance statementLarge observational datasets are often used in epidemiology or social sciences to identify risk factors associated with health outcomes. However, these studies can be misleading when the putative risk factor and outcome are both complex genetic traits: a correlated genetic basis can create spurious associations between a putative risk factor and outcome. Existing approaches to address this problem typically rely on GWAS summary statistics, which require biobank-scale datasets. In this work, we introduce an alternative method that uses a genetic relatedness matrix (GRM) to control for genetic confounding directly. We show that our approach is closely related to existing methods but outperforms them in smaller datasets, making it an especially valuable tool for researchers who work on understudied traits and populations.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Integrating Comprehensive Functional Annotations to Boost Power and Accuracy in Gene-Based Association Analysis 95%
- Bayesian multivariate reanalysis of large genetic studies identifies many new associations 95%
- Adjusting for principal components can induce spurious associations in genome-wide association studies in admixed populations 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Robust, flexible, and scalable tests for Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium across diverse ancestries 95%
- Kinship estimation bias carries over to heritability estimation bias using variance components 95%
- Hidden structure in polygenic scores and the challenge of disentangling ancestry interactions in admixed populations 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficient gene-environment interaction tests for large biobank-scale sequencing studies 95%
- Identity-by-descent mapping using multi-individual IBD with genome-wide multiple testing adjustment 94%
- RetroFun-RVS: a retrospective family-based framework for rare-variant analysis incorporating functional annotations 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.