ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Overlapping-sample Mendelian randomisation with multiple exposures: a Bayesian approach.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetically predicted effects of 10 sleep phenotypes on revision of knee arthroplasty: a mendelian randomization study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Is there a causal association between temporomandibular disorders and COVID-19 risk? A genetic instrumental variables analysis.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2024Article
- Bayesian Mendelian randomization with an interval causal null hypothesis: ternary decision rules and loss function calibration.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Evaluating and implementing block jackknife resampling Mendelian randomization to mitigate bias induced by overlapping samples.Human molecular genetics · 2023Article
- A review of causal discovery methods for molecular network analysis.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Review
- Bayesian mendelian randomization with study heterogeneity and data partitioning for large studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Genetic predisposition to neurodegenerative diseases and risk of stroke: A Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMendelian randomization (MR) has been widely applied to causal inference in medical research. It uses genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to investigate putative causal relationship between an exposure and an outcome. Traditional MR methods have mainly focussed on a two-sample setting in which IV-exposure association study and IV-outcome association study are independent. However, it is not uncommon that participants from the two studies fully overlap (one-sample) or partly overlap (overlapping-sample).
methodsWe proposed a Bayesian method that is applicable to all the three sample settings. In essence, we converted a two- or overlapping- sample MR to a one-sample MR where data were partly unmeasured. Assume that all study individuals were drawn from the same population and unmeasured data were missing at random. Then the missing data were treated au pair with the model parameters as unknown quantities, and thus, were imputed iteratively conditioning on the observed data and estimated parameters using Markov chain Monte Carlo. We generalised our model to allow for pleiotropy and multiple exposures and assessed its performance by a number of simulations using four metrics: mean, standard deviation, coverage and power. We also compared our method with classic MR methods.
resultsIn our proposed method, higher sample overlapping rate and instrument strength led to more precise estimated causal effects with higher power. Pleiotropy had a notably negative impact on the estimates. Nevertheless, the coverages were high and our model performed well in all the sample settings overall. In comparison with classic MR, our method provided estimates with higher precision. When the true causal effects were non-zero, power of their estimates was consistently higher from our method. The performance of our method was similar to classic MR in terms of coverage.
conclusionsOur model offers the flexibility of being applicable to any of the sample settings. It is an important addition to the MR literature which has restricted to one- or two- sample scenarios. Given the nature of Bayesian inference, it can be easily extended to more complex MR analysis in medical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.