Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33947934›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Gene-environment dependencies lead to collider bias in models with polygenic scores.

Evelina T Akimova, Richard Breen, David M Brazel, Melinda C Mills

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The impact of collider bias on genetic prediction in psychotic disorders.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Evelina T AkimovaDepartment of Sociology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 1JD, UK. evelina.akimova@sociology.ox.ac.uk.
Richard BreenDepartment of Sociology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 1JD, UK.
David M BrazelLeverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 1JD, UK.
Melinda C MillsLeverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 1JD, UK.
Leverhulme Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Integrating Genetics and Social Sciences Annual ConferenceR13AG062366 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI BOARDMAN, JASON D · 2018 to 2022
$60k
NIA NIH HHS R13 AG062366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of polygenic scores has transformed our ability to investigate whether and how genetic and environmental factors jointly contribute to the variation of complex traits. Modelling the complex interplay between genes and environment, however, raises serious methodological challenges. Here we illustrate the largely unrecognised impact of gene-environment dependencies on the identification of the effects of genes and their variation across environments. We show that controlling for heritable covariates in regression models that include polygenic scores as independent variables introduces endogenous selection bias when one or more of these covariates depends on unmeasured factors that also affect the outcome. This results in the problem of conditioning on a collider, which in turn leads to spurious associations and effect sizes. Using graphical and simulation methods we demonstrate that the degree of bias depends on the strength of the gene-covariate correlation and of hidden heterogeneity linking covariates with outcomes, regardless of whether the main analytic focus is mediation, confounding, or gene × covariate (commonly gene × environment) interactions. We offer potential solutions, highlighting the importance of causal inference. We also urge further caution when fitting and interpreting models with polygenic scores and non-exogenous environments or phenotypes and demonstrate how spurious associations are likely to arise, advancing our understanding of such results.

Indexed as

CausalityEnvironmentGene-Environment InteractionGenesGeneticsHumansMultifactorial InheritancePhenotypeSelection Bias

Identifiers

PMID33947934
PMCPMC8097011
OpenAlexW3158968814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.