Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34370750›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2021

Exploiting collider bias to apply two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization methods to one-sample individual level data.

Ciarrah Barry, Junxi Liu, Rebecca Richmond, Martin K Rutter, Deborah A Lawlor, Frank Dudbridge, Jack Bowden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ciarrah BarryMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2088-0442
Junxi LiuMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Rebecca RichmondMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0574-5071
Martin K RutterDivision of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6380-539X
Deborah A LawlorMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Frank DudbridgeDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8817-8908
Jack BowdenExeter Diabetes Group (ExCEED), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2628-3304
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/6Medical Research Council MCUU00011/6Medical Research Council MR/S037055/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 218495/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last decade the availability of SNP-trait associations from genome-wide association studies has led to an array of methods for performing Mendelian randomization studies using only summary statistics. A common feature of these methods, besides their intuitive simplicity, is the ability to combine data from several sources, incorporate multiple variants and account for biases due to weak instruments and pleiotropy. With the advent of large and accessible fully-genotyped cohorts such as UK Biobank, there is now increasing interest in understanding how best to apply these well developed summary data methods to individual level data, and to explore the use of more sophisticated causal methods allowing for non-linearity and effect modification. In this paper we describe a general procedure for optimally applying any two sample summary data method using one sample data. Our procedure first performs a meta-analysis of summary data estimates that are intentionally contaminated by collider bias between the genetic instruments and unmeasured confounders, due to conditioning on the observed exposure. These estimates are then used to correct the standard observational association between an exposure and outcome. Simulations are conducted to demonstrate the method's performance against naive applications of two sample summary data MR. We apply the approach to the UK Biobank cohort to investigate the causal role of sleep disturbance on HbA1c levels, an important determinant of diabetes. Our approach can be viewed as a generalization of Dudbridge et al. (Nat. Comm. 10: 1561), who developed a technique to adjust for index event bias when uncovering genetic predictors of disease progression based on case-only data. Our work serves to clarify that in any one sample MR analysis, it can be advantageous to estimate causal relationships by artificially inducing and then correcting for collider bias.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiological Specimen BanksComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyGlycated HemoglobinHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisSleep Wake DisordersUnited KingdomGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID34370750
PMCPMC8376220
OpenAlexW3188268493

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.