Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38341532›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

A data-adaptive method for investigating effect heterogeneity with high-dimensional covariates in Mendelian randomization.

Haodong Tian, Brian D M Tom, Stephen Burgess

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Haodong TianMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. haodong.tian@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk.
Brian D M TomMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen BurgessMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBMRC Biostatistics Unit · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC UU 00002/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/7Wellcome Trust 100114Wellcome Trust 225790/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMendelian randomization is a popular method for causal inference with observational data that uses genetic variants as instrumental variables. Similarly to a randomized trial, a standard Mendelian randomization analysis estimates the population-averaged effect of an exposure on an outcome. Dividing the population into subgroups can reveal effect heterogeneity to inform who would most benefit from intervention on the exposure. However, as covariates are measured post-"randomization", naive stratification typically induces collider bias in stratum-specific estimates.

methodWe extend a previously proposed stratification method (the "doubly-ranked method") to form strata based on a single covariate, and introduce a data-adaptive random forest method to calculate stratum-specific estimates that are robust to collider bias based on a high-dimensional covariate set. We also propose measures based on the Q statistic to assess heterogeneity between stratum-specific estimates (to understand whether estimates are more variable than expected due to chance alone) and variable importance (to identify the key drivers of effect heterogeneity).

resultWe show that the effect of body mass index (BMI) on lung function is heterogeneous, depending most strongly on hip circumference and weight. While for most individuals, the predicted effect of increasing BMI on lung function is negative, it is positive for some individuals and strongly negative for others.

conclusionOur data-adaptive approach allows for the exploration of effect heterogeneity in the relationship between an exposure and an outcome within a Mendelian randomization framework. This can yield valuable insights into disease aetiology and help identify specific groups of individuals who would derive the greatest benefit from targeted interventions on the exposure.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationMendelian Randomization AnalysisBiasBody Mass IndexCausalityHumansGeneticsHeterogenous effectInstrumental variableRandom forestStratificationVariable importance

Identifiers

PMID38341532
PMCPMC10858611
OpenAlexW4391716714

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.