4.6 Article

Efficient Design for Mendelian Randomization Studies: Subsample and 2-Sample Instrumental Variable Estimators

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 178, 期 7, 页码 1177-1184

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt084

关键词

epidemiologic methods; instrumental variable; Mendelian randomization

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 ES02050, P30 CA014599]
  2. US Department of Defense [W81XWH-10-1-0499]
  3. Wellcome Trust [100114]
  4. MRC [MR/L003120/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. British Heart Foundation [SP/08/007/23628, RG/08/014/24067] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [MR/L003120/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0512-10165] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method for estimating the causal relationship between an exposure and an outcome using a genetic factor as an instrumental variable (IV) for the exposure. In the traditional MR setting, data on the IV, exposure, and outcome are available for all participants. However, obtaining complete exposure data may be difficult in some settings, due to high measurement costs or lack of appropriate biospecimens. We used simulated data sets to assess statistical power and bias for MR when exposure data are available for a subset (or an independent set) of participants. We show that obtaining exposure data for a subset of participants is a cost-efficient strategy, often having negligible effects on power in comparison with a traditional complete-data analysis. The size of the subset needed to achieve maximum power depends on IV strength, and maximum power is approximately equal to the power of traditional IV estimators. Weak IVs are shown to lead to bias towards the null when the subsample is small and towards the confounded association when the subset is relatively large. Various approaches for confidence interval calculation are considered. These results have important implications for reducing the costs and increasing the feasibility of MR studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据