Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Peer-reviewed

Bias due to participant overlap in two‐sample Mendelian randomization

Stephen Burgess, Neil M Davies, Simon G. Thompson

Genetic Epidemiology · 2016

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

Mendelian randomization analyses are often performed using summarized data. The causal estimate from a one-sample analysis (in which data are taken from a single data source) with weak instrumental variables is biased in the direction of the observational association between the risk factor and outcome, whereas the estimate from a two-sample analysis (in which data on the risk factor and outcome are taken from non-overlapping datasets) is less biased and any bias is in the direction of the null. When using genetic consortia that have partially overlapping sets of participants, the direction and extent of bias are uncertain. In this paper, we perform simulation studies to investigate the magnitude of bias and Type 1 error rate inflation arising from sample overlap. We consider both a contin

Source type
Peer-reviewed study
DOI
10.1002/gepi.21998
Catalogue ID
SNmohdwinv-5tv6tw
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.