Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Peer-reviewed

Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity

Gareth J Griffith, Tim Morris, Matthew Tudball, Annie Herbert, Giulia Mancano, Lindsey Pike, Gemma C. Sharp, Jonathan A C Sterne, Tom Palmer, George Davey Smith, Kate Tilling, Luisa Zuccolo, Neil M Davies, Gibran Hemani

Nature Communications · 2020

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

Numerous observational studies have attempted to identify risk factors for infection with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease outcomes. Studies have used datasets sampled from patients admitted to hospital, people tested for active infection, or people who volunteered to participate. Here, we highlight the challenge of interpreting observational evidence from such non-representative samples. Collider bias can induce associations between two or more variables which affect the likelihood of an individual being sampled, distorting associations between these variables in the sample. Analysing UK Biobank data, compared to the wider cohort the participants tested for COVID-19 were highly selected for a range of genetic, behavioural, cardiovascular, demographic, and anthropometric traits. We discuss

Source type
Peer-reviewed study
DOI
10.1038/s41467-020-19478-2
Catalogue ID
BFmoef2ocf-lyzr1l
Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.