The effect of non-differential measurement error on bias, precision and power in Mendelian randomization studies

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1383-1393

  Pierce, Brandon L ^a   Vanderweele, Tyler J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Causal inference; Instrumental variable analysis; Measurement error; Mendelian randomization; Power; Two stage least squares regression

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ERROR ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINATION ERROR; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POWER ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CAUSALITY; COHORT STUDIES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84867606063     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dys141     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008;27:1133-63.
2. Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res 2007;16:309-30.
3. Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 2006;38:904-09.
4. Tian C, Gregersen PK, Seldin MF. Accounting for ancestry: population substructure and genome-wide association studies. Hum Mol Genet 2008;17:R143-50.
5. Kim KK, Won HH, Cho SS et al. Comparison of identical single nucleotide polymorphisms genotyped by the GeneChip Targeted Genotyping 25 K, Affymetrix 500K and Illumina 550K platforms. Genomics 2009;94: 89-93.
6. Turner S, Armstrong LL, Bradford Y et al. Quality control procedures for genome-wide association studies. Curr Protoc Hum Genet 2011. Chapter 1:Unit1.19.
7. Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 1904;15:72-101.
8. Davey Smith G, Phillips AN. Inflation in epidemiology: "the proof and measurement of association between two things" revisited. BMJ 1996;312:1659-61.
9. White E. Design and interpretation of studies of differential exposure measurement error. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157:380-87.
10. Thomas D, Stram D, Dwyer J. Exposure measurement error: influence on exposure-disease. Relationships and methods of correction. Annu Rev Public Health 1993;14: 69-93.
11. Bochud M, Rousson V. Usefulness of Mendelian randomization in observational epidemiology. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010;7:711-28.
12. Hofker M, Wijmenga C. A supersized list of obesity genes. Nat Genet 2009;41:139-40.
13. Teslovich TM, Musunuru K, Smith AV et al. Biological, clinical and population relevance of 95 loci for blood lipids. Nature 2010;466:707-13.
14. Dehghan A, Dupuis J, Barbalic M et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in480 000 subjects identifies multiple loci for C-reactive protein levels. Circulation 2011;123:731-38.
15. Lauderdale DS, Knutson KL, Yan LL, Liu K, Rathouz PJ. Self-reported and measured sleep duration: how similar are they? Epidemiology 2008;19:838-45.
16. Spiegelman D, McDermott A, Rosner B. Regression calibration method for correcting measurement-error bias in nutritional epidemiology. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;65(Suppl 4):1179S-86S.
17. Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA. Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models. London: Chapman & Hall, 1995.
18. Bollen K. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley, 1989.
19. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology 2006;17:260-67.
20. Palmer TM, Thompson JR, Tobin MD, Sheehan NA, Burton PR. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses. Int J Epidemiol 2008;37:1161-68.
21. Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Mittleman MA, Brookhart MA. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169:273-84.
22. Bowden J, Vansteelandt S. Mendelian randomization analysis of case-control data using structural mean models. Stat Med 2011;30:678-94.
23. Baum CF, Schaffer ME, Stillman S. Instrumental variables and GMM: estimation and testing. Stata J 2003;3:1-31.
24. Pierce BL, Ahsan H, Vanderweele TJ. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:740-52.
25. Hausman J. Mismeasured variables in econometric anlaysis: problems from the right and problems from the left. J Econ Perspect 2001;15:57-67.
26. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:30-42.
27. Davey Smith G, Timpson N, Ebrahim S. Strengthening causal inference in cardiovascular epidemiology through Mendelian randomization. Ann Med 2008;40:524-41.
28. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments. Stat Med 2011;30:1312-23.
29. Brenner H, Savitz DA. The effects of sensitivity and specificity of case selection on validity, sample size, precision, and power in hospital-based case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:181-92.
30. Rothman KJ. BMI-related errors in the measurement of obesity. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008;32(Suppl 3):S56-59.
31. Nawaz H, Chan W, Abdulrahman M, Larson D, Katz DL. Self-reported weight and height: implications for obesity research. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:294-98.
32. Holland NT, Smith MT, Eskenazi B, Bastaki M. Biological sample collection and processing for molecular epidemiological studies. Mutat Res 2003;543:217-34.
33. White E, Armstrong BK, Saracci R. Principles of Exposure Measurement in Epidemiology. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
34. Willett W. Nutritional Epidemiology. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
35. Tworoger SS, Hankinson SE. Use of biomarkers in epidemiologic studies: minimizing the influence of measurement error in the study design and analysis. Cancer Causes Control 2006;17:889-99.
36. Missmer SA, Spiegelman D, Bertone-Johnson ER, Barbieri RL, Pollak MN, Hankinson SE. Reproducibility of plasma steroid hormones, prolactin, and insulin-like growth factor levels among premenopausal women over a 2 - to 3-year period. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:972-78.
37. Michaud DS, Manson JE, Spiegelman D et al. Reproducibility of plasma and urinary sex hormone levels in premenopausal women over a one-year period. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:1059-64.
38. Schisterman EF, Little RJ. Opening the black box of biomarker measurement error. Epidemiology 2010;21(Suppl 4):S1-S3.
39. Pare G, Ridker PM, Rose L et al. Genome-wide association analysis of soluble ICAM-1 concentration reveals novel associations at the NFKBIK, PNPLA3, RELA, and SH2B3 loci. PLoS Genet 2011;7:e1001374.
40. Qi L, Cornelis MC, Kraft P et al. Genetic variants in ABO blood group region, plasma soluble E-selectin levels and risk of type 2 diabetes. Hum Mol Genet 2010; 19:1856-62.
41. Didelez V, Meng S, Sheehan NA. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Stat Sci 2010; 25:22-40.
42. Sheehan NA, Didelez V. Commentary: can 'many weak' instruments ever be 'strong'? Int J Epidemiol 2011;40: 752-54.
43. Cai B, Small DS, Have TR. Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias. Stat Med 2011;30:1809-24.
44. Terza JV, Basu A, Rathouz PJ. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. J Health Econ 2008;27:531-43.
45. Robins JM, Rotnitzky A. Estimation of treatment effects in randomised trials with non-compliance and a dichotomous outcome using structural mean models. Biometrika 2004;91:763-83.
46. van der Laan MJ, Hubbard A, Jewell NP. Estimation of treatment effects in randomized trials with noncompliance and a dichotomous outcome. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 2007;69:442-82.
47. Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E. Causal inference with generalized structural mean models. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 2003;65:817-35.
48. Shinohara RT, Frangakis CE, Platz E, Tsilidis K. Estimating effects by combining instrumental variables with case-control designs: the role of principal stratification. Johns Hopkins University, Department of Biostatistics Working Papers 2008 (Working Paper 198). http://www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper198 (5 September 2012, date last accessed).
49. Cai B. Causal inference with two-stage logistic regression- accuracy, precisions, and application. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations (Paper 225), 2010. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/255 (5 September 2012, date last accessed).