4.6 Article

Diagnostics for Pleiotropy in Mendelian Randomization Studies: Global and Individual Tests for Direct Effects

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 187, 期 12, 页码 2672-2680

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwy177

关键词

causal inference; direct effect; instrumental variables; sensitivity analysis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 CA233588, R01 HL114901, P01 CA53996]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P01CA053996, R01CA189532, U01CA167551, R00CA215314, R01CA222833] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL114901] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diagnosing pleiotropy is critical for assessing the validity of Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. The popular MR-Egger method evaluates whether there is evidence of bias-generating pleiotropy among a set of candidate genetic instrumental variables. In this article, we propose a statistical method-global and individual tests for direct effects (GLIDE)-for systematically evaluating pleiotropy among the set of genetic variants (e.g., single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) used for MR. As a global test, simulation experiments suggest that GLIDE is nearly uniformly more powerful than theMR-Eggermethod. As a sensitivity analysis, GLIDE is capable of detecting outliers in individual variant-level pleiotropy, in order to obtain a refined set of genetic instrumental variables. We used GLIDE to analyze both bodymass index and height for associations with colorectal cancer risk in data from the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium and the Colon Cancer Family Registry (multiple studies). Among the body mass index-associated SNPs and the height-associated SNPs, several individual variants showed evidence of pleiotropy. Removal of these potentially pleiotropic SNPs resulted in attenuation of respective estimates of the causal effects. In summary, the proposed GLIDEmethod is useful for sensitivity analyses and improves the validity of MR.

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