Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5808/gi.21060

Exploration of errors in variance caused by using the first-order approximation in Mendelian randomization  

Kim, Hakin (Interdisciplinary Program of Bioengineering, Seoul National University College of Engineering)
Kim, Kunhee (Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Han, Buhm (Interdisciplinary Program of Bioengineering, Seoul National University College of Engineering)
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variation as a natural experiment to investigate the causal effects of modifiable risk factors (exposures) on outcomes. Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is widely used to measure causal effects between exposures and outcomes via genome-wide association studies. 2SMR can increase statistical power by utilizing summary statistics from large consortia such as the UK Biobank. However, the first-order term approximation of standard error is commonly used when applying 2SMR. This approximation can underestimate the variance of causal effects in MR, which can lead to an increased false-positive rate. An alternative is to use the second-order approximation of the standard error, which can considerably correct for the deviation of the first-order approximation. In this study, we simulated MR to show the degree to which the first-order approximation underestimates the variance. We show that depending on the specific situation, the first-order approximation can underestimate the variance almost by half when compared to the true variance, whereas the second-order approximation is robust and accurate.
Keywords
computer simulation; delta method; Mendelian randomization analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013;37:658-665.   DOI
2 Smith GD, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1-22.   DOI
3 Lawlor DA. Commentary: Two-sample Mendelian randomization: opportunities and challenges. Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:908-915.   DOI
4 Thomas DC, Lawlor DA, Thompson JR. Re: Estimation of bias in nongenetic observational studies using "Mendelian triangulation" by Bautista et al. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17:511-513.   DOI
5 Teumer A. Common methods for performing Mendelian randomization. Front Cardiovasc Med 2018;5:51.   DOI
6 Glymour MM, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Robins JM. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol 2012;175:332-339.   DOI
7 VanderWeele TJ, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in mendelian randomization. Epidemiology 2014;25:427-435.   DOI
8 Burgess S, Small DS, Thompson SG. A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. Stat Methods Med Res 2017;26:2333-2355.   DOI