The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization

被引:103
|
作者
Davies, Neil M. [1 ,2 ]
Scholder, Stephanie von Hinke Kessler [3 ]
Farbmacher, Helmut [4 ]
Burgess, Stephen [3 ,5 ]
Windmeijer, Frank [1 ,3 ]
Smith, George Davey [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Med Res Council Integrat Epidemiol Unit, Bristol BS8 2BN, Avon, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol BS8 2BN, Avon, England
[3] Univ Bristol, Dept Econ, Bristol BS8 1TN, Avon, England
[4] Max Planck Inst Social Law & Social Policy, Munich Ctr Econ Aging, D-80799 Munich, Germany
[5] Univ Cambridge, Sch Clin Med, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Cambridge CB1 8RN, England
基金
欧洲研究理事会; 英国医学研究理事会; 英国惠康基金;
关键词
Mendelian randomization; many weak instruments; continuously updating estimator; allele scores; height; ALSPAC; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION; GENERALIZED-METHOD; SAMPLE PROPERTIES; VARIABLES; BIAS; MOMENTS; HEIGHT; GMM; APPROXIMATIONS; SPECIFICATION;
D O I
10.1002/sim.6358
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Instrumental variable estimates of causal effects can be biased when using many instruments that are only weakly associated with the exposure. We describe several techniques to reduce this bias and estimate corrected standard errors. We present our findings using a simulation study and an empirical application. For the latter, we estimate the effect of height on lung function, using genetic variants as instruments for height. Our simulation study demonstrates that, using many weak individual variants, two-stage least squares (2SLS) is biased, whereas the limited information maximum likelihood (LIML) and the continuously updating estimator (CUE) are unbiased and have accurate rejection frequencies when standard errors are corrected for the presence of many weak instruments. Our illustrative empirical example uses data on 3631 children from England. We used 180 genetic variants as instruments and compared conventional ordinary least squares estimates with results for the 2SLS, LIML, and CUE instrumental variable estimators using the individual height variants. We further compare these with instrumental variable estimates using an unweighted or weighted allele score as single instruments. In conclusion, the allele scores and CUE gave consistent estimates of the causal effect. In our empirical example, estimates using the allele score were more efficient. CUE with corrected standard errors, however, provides a useful additional statistical tool in applications with many weak instruments. The CUE may be preferred over an allele score if the population weights for the allele score are unknown or when the causal effects of multiple risk factors are estimated jointly. (c) 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:454 / 468
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Correction for Sample Overlap, Winner's Curse and Weak Instruments Bias in Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization
    Ninon, Mounier
    Zoltan, Kutalik
    HUMAN HEREDITY, 2021, 85 (02) : 86 - 86
  • [12] Using instruments for selection to adjust for selection bias in Mendelian randomization
    Gkatzionis, Apostolos
    Tilling, Kate
    HUMAN HEREDITY, 2022, VOL. (SUPPL 1) : 23 - 23
  • [13] Using Genetic Instruments to Estimate Interactions in Mendelian Randomization Studies
    North, Teri-Louise
    Davies, Neil M.
    Harrison, Sean
    Carter, Alice R.
    Hemani, Gibran
    Sanderson, Eleanor
    Tilling, Kate
    Howe, Laura D.
    EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 30 (06) : E33 - E35
  • [14] 'Mendelian randomization' equals instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments
    Wehby, George L.
    Ohsfeldt, Robert L.
    Murray, Jeffrey C.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2008, 27 (15) : 2745 - 2749
  • [15] Using instruments for selection to adjust for selection bias in Mendelian randomization
    Gkatzionis, Apostolos
    Tchetgen, Eric J. Tchetgen
    Heron, Jon
    Northstone, Kate
    Tilling, Kate
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2024, 43 (22) : 4250 - 4271
  • [16] Missing Data Methods in Mendelian Randomization Studies With Multiple Instruments
    Burgess, Stephen
    Seaman, Shaun
    Lawlor, Debbie A.
    Casas, Juan P.
    Thompson, Simon G.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 174 (09) : 1069 - 1076
  • [17] A practical problem with Egger regression in Mendelian randomization
    Lin, Zhaotong
    Pan, Isaac
    Pan, Wei
    PLOS GENETICS, 2022, 18 (05):
  • [18] Correction for sample overlap, Winner's curse and weak-instruments bias in two-sample Mendelian Randomization
    Mounier, Ninon
    Kutalik, Zoltan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2022, 30 (SUPPL 1) : 492 - 492
  • [19] Binary Response Model With Many Weak Instruments
    Seong, Dakyung
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECONOMETRICS, 2025, 40 (02) : 214 - 230
  • [20] Comparison with randomized controlled trials as a strategy for evaluating instruments in Mendelian randomization
    Gill, Dipender
    Walker, Venexia M.
    Martin, Richard M.
    Davies, Neil M.
    Tzoulaki, Ioanna
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 49 (04) : 1404 - 1406