Evaluating methodology to infer the effect direction in genetic association studies: applications to Body Mass Index, depression, and asthma
Chen, T.; Voorhies, K.; Reeson, A.; Seo, S.; Lee, S.; Hahn, G.; Hecker, J.; Prokopenko, D.; Hoth, K.; Kelly, R.; Lasky-Su, J. A.; Weiss, S.; Lange, C.; Lutz, S.
Show abstract
Mendelian Randomization (MR) is a popular tool for inferring causal relationships between traits using genetic variants as instrumental variables. These methods have been extended to also determine the direction of causality. However, causal direction cannot be inferred from a statistical test or estimation procedure (i.e. from data alone) without further assumptions and the methods operating characteristics and relative performances are not well understood. We conducted a comprehensive simulation study to illustrate this issue by evaluating type I error and power of 17 summary-based MR methods for inferring the effect direction. These methods fall within three methodological families: MR Steiger, Causal Direction (CD), and bidirectional MR approaches, with scenarios ranging across combinations of horizontal pleiotropy, unmeasured confounding, measurement error, longitudinal feedback, and varying sample sizes. While most methods achieved sufficient power levels under the alternative hypothesis in most scenarios, we found that every method was susceptible to inferring the wrong causal direction or under powered, and no method consistently maintained both correct type 1 error control and high power. In our applications, we evaluated the effect direction between the trait pairs body mass index (BMI) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and between BMI and asthma. To help researchers to evaluate the 17 methods to infer the effect direction and consider these challenges in their own data, we have developed MRdirection, an R package that runs the simulation studies examining the 17 directional MR methods across different user-defined scenarios. Our study, together with the accompanying R package, provides researchers with a tool for examining directional MR methods given different underlying assumptions.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Negative Control Exposures: Causal effect Identifiability and Use in Probabilistic-Bias and Bayesian Analyses with Unmeasured Confounders 91%
- Incorporating data from multiple endpoints in the analysis of clinical trials: example from RSV vaccines 90%
- Assessing Direct and Spillover Effects of Intervention Packages in Network-Randomized Studies 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- The PPLD has advantages over conventional regression methods in application to moderately sized genome-wide association studies 93%
- Introducing riskCommunicator: an R package to obtain interpretable effect estimates for public health 92%
- A gene based approach to test genetic association based on an Optimally Weighted Combination of Multiple Traits 92%
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.