MR-SPLIT: A novel method to address selection and weak instrument bias in one-sample Mendelian randomization studies.

IF 4 2区 生物学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY PLoS Genetics Pub Date : 2024-09-06 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1011391
Ruxin Shi, Ling Wang, Stephen Burgess, Yuehua Cui
{"title":"MR-SPLIT: A novel method to address selection and weak instrument bias in one-sample Mendelian randomization studies.","authors":"Ruxin Shi, Ling Wang, Stephen Burgess, Yuehua Cui","doi":"10.1371/journal.pgen.1011391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mendelian Randomization (MR) is a widely embraced approach to assess causality in epidemiological studies. Two-stage least squares (2SLS) method is a predominant technique in MR analysis. However, it can lead to biased estimates when instrumental variables (IVs) are weak. Moreover, the issue of the winner's curse could emerge when utilizing the same dataset for both IV selection and causal effect estimation, leading to biased estimates of causal effects and high false positives. Focusing on one-sample MR analysis, this paper introduces a novel method termed Mendelian Randomization with adaptive Sample-sPLitting with cross-fitting InstrumenTs (MR-SPLIT), designed to address bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs, under the 2SLS IV regression framework. We show that the MR-SPLIT estimator is more efficient than its counterpart cross-fitting MR (CFMR) estimator. Additionally, we introduce a multiple sample-splitting technique to enhance the robustness of the method. We conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of our method with its counterparts. The results underscored its superiority in bias reduction, effective type I error control, and increased power. We further demonstrate its utility through the application of a real-world dataset. Our study underscores the importance of addressing bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs in one-sample MR analyses and provides a robust solution to the challenge.</p>","PeriodicalId":49007,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Genetics","volume":"20 9","pages":"e1011391"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11410202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011391","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mendelian Randomization (MR) is a widely embraced approach to assess causality in epidemiological studies. Two-stage least squares (2SLS) method is a predominant technique in MR analysis. However, it can lead to biased estimates when instrumental variables (IVs) are weak. Moreover, the issue of the winner's curse could emerge when utilizing the same dataset for both IV selection and causal effect estimation, leading to biased estimates of causal effects and high false positives. Focusing on one-sample MR analysis, this paper introduces a novel method termed Mendelian Randomization with adaptive Sample-sPLitting with cross-fitting InstrumenTs (MR-SPLIT), designed to address bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs, under the 2SLS IV regression framework. We show that the MR-SPLIT estimator is more efficient than its counterpart cross-fitting MR (CFMR) estimator. Additionally, we introduce a multiple sample-splitting technique to enhance the robustness of the method. We conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of our method with its counterparts. The results underscored its superiority in bias reduction, effective type I error control, and increased power. We further demonstrate its utility through the application of a real-world dataset. Our study underscores the importance of addressing bias issues due to IV selection and weak IVs in one-sample MR analyses and provides a robust solution to the challenge.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
MR-SPLIT:解决单样本孟德尔随机研究中选择偏差和弱工具偏差的新方法。
孟德尔随机法(Mendelian Randomization,MR)是流行病学研究中广泛采用的一种因果关系评估方法。两阶段最小二乘法(2SLS)是 MR 分析的主要技术。然而,当工具变量(IV)较弱时,该方法可能会导致估计值有偏差。此外,当利用同一数据集进行 IV 选择和因果效应估计时,可能会出现赢家诅咒问题,导致因果效应估计偏差和高假阳性。本文以单样本 MR 分析为重点,介绍了一种名为 "孟德尔随机化与交叉拟合的自适应样本分层"(Mendelian Randomization with adaptive Sample-sPLitting with cross-fitting InstrumenTs,MR-SPLIT)的新方法,旨在 2SLS IV 回归框架下解决因 IV 选择和弱 IV 导致的偏差问题。我们的研究表明,MR-SPLIT 估计器比其对应的交叉拟合 MR(CFMR)估计器更有效。此外,我们还引入了多重样本分割技术,以增强该方法的稳健性。我们进行了广泛的模拟研究,以比较我们的方法与同类方法的性能。结果表明,我们的方法在减少偏差、有效控制 I 类误差和提高功率方面具有优势。通过应用真实世界数据集,我们进一步证明了该方法的实用性。我们的研究强调了在单样本磁共振分析中解决因IV选择和弱IV导致的偏差问题的重要性,并为这一挑战提供了一个稳健的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Genetics
PLoS Genetics GENETICS & HEREDITY-
自引率
2.20%
发文量
438
期刊介绍: PLOS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editors-in-Chief, Greg Barsh (HudsonAlpha Institute of Biotechnology, and Stanford University School of Medicine) and Greg Copenhaver (The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Articles published in PLOS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.
期刊最新文献
A high-resolution haplotype collection uncovers somatic hybridization, recombination and intercontinental movement in oat crown rust. Protein phosphatase 1 catalytic subunit gamma is a causative gene for meat lightness and redness. A novel statistical framework for meta-analysis of total mediation effect with high-dimensional omics mediators in large-scale genomic consortia. Cell non-autonomous signaling through the conserved C. elegans glycoprotein hormone receptor FSHR-1 regulates cholinergic neurotransmission. Neuronal fatty acid-binding protein enhances autophagy and suppresses amyloid-β pathology in a Drosophila model of Alzheimer's disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1