Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32119656›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2020

Bayesian network analysis incorporating genetic anchors complements conventional Mendelian randomization approaches for exploratory analysis of causal relationships in complex data.

Richard Howey, So-Youn Shin, Caroline Relton, George Davey Smith, Heather J Cordell

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05336851 (Emergency PanorOmic Wide Association Study in Respiratory Infectious Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05336851 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Emergency PanorOmic Wide Association Study in Respiratory Infectious Disease (ePWAS-RID)

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2023 to 2028Enrolled2,000ConditionsViral Infections, Bacterial Infections, Fungal Infections, Mixed InfectionArmsBiomarker blood draw and saliva collection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Artificial intelligence for dementia genetics and omics.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Richard HoweyInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
So-Youn ShinInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Caroline ReltonMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1407-8314
Heather J CordellInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1879-5572

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/5Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 102858/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) implemented through instrumental variables analysis is an increasingly popular causal inference tool used in genetic epidemiology. But it can have limitations for evaluating simultaneous causal relationships in complex data sets that include, for example, multiple genetic predictors and multiple potential risk factors associated with the same genetic variant. Here we use real and simulated data to investigate Bayesian network analysis (BN) with the incorporation of directed arcs, representing genetic anchors, as an alternative approach. A Bayesian network describes the conditional dependencies/independencies of variables using a graphical model (a directed acyclic graph) with an accompanying joint probability. In real data, we found BN could be used to infer simultaneous causal relationships that confirmed the individual causal relationships suggested by bi-directional MR, while allowing for the existence of potential horizontal pleiotropy (that would violate MR assumptions). In simulated data, BN with two directional anchors (mimicking genetic instruments) had greater power for a fixed type 1 error than bi-directional MR, while BN with a single directional anchor performed better than or as well as bi-directional MR. Both BN and MR could be adversely affected by violations of their underlying assumptions (such as genetic confounding due to unmeasured horizontal pleiotropy). BN with no directional anchor generated inference that was no better than by chance, emphasizing the importance of directional anchors in BN (as in MR). Under highly pleiotropic simulated scenarios, BN outperformed both MR (and its recent extensions) and two recently-proposed alternative approaches: a multi-SNP mediation intersection-union test (SMUT) and a latent causal variable (LCV) test. We conclude that BN incorporating genetic anchors is a useful complementary method to conventional MR for exploring causal relationships in complex data sets such as those generated from modern "omics" technologies.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremGenetic PleiotropyHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotideRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID32119656
PMCPMC7067488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.