↓ Skip to main content

Bias correction for inverse variance weighting Mendelian randomization

Overview of attention for article published in Genetic Epidemiology, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 831)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bias correction for inverse variance weighting Mendelian randomization
Published in
Genetic Epidemiology, April 2023
DOI 10.1002/gepi.22522
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ninon Mounier, Zoltán Kutalik

Abstract

Inverse-variance weighted two-sample Mendelian randomization (IVW-MR) is the most widely used approach that utilizes genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary statistics to infer the existence and the strength of the causal effect between an exposure and an outcome. Estimates from this approach can be subject to different biases due to the use of weak instruments and winner's curse, which can change as a function of the overlap between the exposure and outcome samples. We developed a method (MRlap) that simultaneously considers weak instrument bias and winner's curse while accounting for potential sample overlap. Assuming spike-and-slab genomic architecture and leveraging linkage disequilibrium score regression and other techniques, we could analytically derive, reliably estimate, and hence correct for the bias of IVW-MR using association summary statistics only. We tested our approach using simulated data for a wide range of realistic settings. In all the explored scenarios, our correction reduced the bias, in some situations by as much as 30-fold. In addition, our results are consistent with the fact that the strength of the biases will decrease as the sample size increases and we also showed that the overall bias is also dependent on the genetic architecture of the exposure, and traits with low heritability and/or high polygenicity are more strongly affected. Applying MRlap to obesity-related exposures revealed statistically significant differences between IVW-based and corrected effects, both for nonoverlapping and fully overlapping samples. Our method not only reduces bias in causal effect estimation but also enables the use of much larger GWAS sample sizes, by allowing for potentially overlapping samples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Master 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 16 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,084,546
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Genetic Epidemiology
#23
of 831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,671
of 408,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetic Epidemiology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 831 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them