-
Empirically assessing the plausibility of unconfoundedness in observational studies
Authors:
Fernando Pires Hartwig,
Kate Tilling,
George Davey Smith
Abstract:
The possibility of unmeasured confounding is one of the main limitations for causal inference from observational studies. There are different methods for partially empirically assessing the plausibility of unconfoundedness. However, most currently available methods require (at least partial) assumptions about the confounding structure, which may be difficult to know in practice. In this paper we d…
▽ More
The possibility of unmeasured confounding is one of the main limitations for causal inference from observational studies. There are different methods for partially empirically assessing the plausibility of unconfoundedness. However, most currently available methods require (at least partial) assumptions about the confounding structure, which may be difficult to know in practice. In this paper we describe a simple strategy for empirically assessing the plausibility of conditional unconfoundedness (i.e., whether the candidate set of covariates suffices for confounding adjustment) which does not require any assumptions about the confounding structure, requiring instead assumptions related to temporal ordering between covariates, exposure and outcome (which can be guaranteed by design), measurement error and selection into the study. The proposed method essentially relies on testing the association between a subset of covariates (those associated with the exposure given all other covariates) and the outcome conditional on the remaining covariates and the exposure. We describe the assumptions underlying the method, provide proofs, use simulations to corroborate the theory and illustrate the method with an applied example assessing the causal effect of length-for-age measured in childhood and intelligence quotient measured in adulthood using data from the 1982 Pelotas (Brazil) birth cohort. We also discuss the implications of measurement error and some important limitations.
△ Less
Submitted 15 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Almost exact Mendelian randomization
Authors:
Matthew J Tudball,
George Davey Smith,
Qingyuan Zhao
Abstract:
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a natural experimental design based on the random transmission of genes from parents to offspring. However, this inferential basis is typically only implicit or used as an informal justification. As parent-offspring data becomes more widely available, we advocate a different approach to MR that is exactly based on this natural randomization, thereby formalizing the…
▽ More
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a natural experimental design based on the random transmission of genes from parents to offspring. However, this inferential basis is typically only implicit or used as an informal justification. As parent-offspring data becomes more widely available, we advocate a different approach to MR that is exactly based on this natural randomization, thereby formalizing the analogy between MR and randomized controlled trials. We begin by develo** a causal graphical model for MR which represents several biological processes and phenomena, including population structure, gamete formation, fertilization, genetic linkage, and pleiotropy. This causal graph is then used to detect biases in population-based MR studies and identify sufficient confounder adjustment sets to correct these biases. We then propose a randomization test in the within-family MR design using the exogenous randomness in meiosis and fertilization, which is extensively studied in genetics. Besides its transparency and conceptual appeals, our approach also offers some practical advantages, including robustness to misspecified phenotype models, robustness to weak instruments, and elimination of bias arising from population structure, assortative mating, dynastic effects, and horizontal pleiotropy. We conclude with an analysis of a pair of negative and positive controls in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. The accompanying R package can be found at https://github.com/matt-tudball/almostexactmr.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2023; v1 submitted 30 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
How to estimate heritability, a guide for epidemiologists
Authors:
Ciarrah-Jane S Barry,
Venexia M Walker,
Rosa C G Cheesman,
George Davey Smith,
Tim T Morris,
Neil M Davies
Abstract:
Traditionally, heritability has been estimated using family-based methods such as twin studies. Advancements in molecular genomics have facilitated the development of alternative methods that utilise large samples of unrelated or related individuals. Yet, specific challenges persist in the estimation of heritability such as epistasis, assortative mating and indirect genetic effects. Here, we provi…
▽ More
Traditionally, heritability has been estimated using family-based methods such as twin studies. Advancements in molecular genomics have facilitated the development of alternative methods that utilise large samples of unrelated or related individuals. Yet, specific challenges persist in the estimation of heritability such as epistasis, assortative mating and indirect genetic effects. Here, we provide an overview of common methods applied in genetic epidemiology to estimate heritability i.e., the proportion of phenotypic variation explained by genetic variation. We provide a guide to key genetic concepts required to understand heritability estimation methods from family-based designs (twin and family studies), genomic designs based on unrelated individuals (LD score regression, GREML), and family-based genomic designs (Sibling regression, GREML-KIN, Trio-GCTA, MGCTA, RDR). For each method, we describe how heritability is estimated, the assumptions underlying its estimation, and discuss the implications when these assumptions are not met. We further discuss the benefits and limitations of estimating heritability within samples of unrelated individuals compared to samples of related individuals. Overall, this article is intended to help the reader determine the circumstances when each method would be appropriate and why.
△ Less
Submitted 16 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
Homogeneity in the instrument-treatment association is not sufficient for the Wald estimand to equal the average causal effect for a binary instrument and a continuous exposure
Authors:
Fernando Pires Hartwig,
Linbo Wang,
George Davey Smith,
Neil Martin Davies
Abstract:
Background: Interpreting instrumental variable results often requires further assumptions in addition to the core assumptions of relevance, independence, and the exclusion restriction. Methods: We assess whether instrument-exposure additive homogeneity renders the Wald estimand equal to the average derivative effect (ADE) in the case of a binary instrument and a continuous exposure. Results: Instr…
▽ More
Background: Interpreting instrumental variable results often requires further assumptions in addition to the core assumptions of relevance, independence, and the exclusion restriction. Methods: We assess whether instrument-exposure additive homogeneity renders the Wald estimand equal to the average derivative effect (ADE) in the case of a binary instrument and a continuous exposure. Results: Instrument-exposure additive homogeneity is insufficient for ADE identification when the instrument is binary, the exposure is continuous and the effect of the exposure on the outcome is non-linear on the additive scale. For a binary exposure, the exposure-outcome effect is necessarily additive linear, so the homogeneity condition is sufficient. Conclusions: For binary instruments, instrument-exposure additive homogeneity identifies the ADE if the exposure is also binary. Otherwise, additional assumptions (such as additive linearity of the exposure-outcome effect) are required.
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2022; v1 submitted 2 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Average causal effect estimation via instrumental variables: the no simultaneous heterogeneity assumption
Authors:
F. P. Hartwig,
L. Wang,
G. Davey Smith,
N. M. Davies
Abstract:
Background: Instrumental variables (IVs) can be used to provide evidence as to whether a treatment X has a causal effect on an outcome Y. Even if the instrument Z satisfies the three core IV assumptions of relevance, independence and the exclusion restriction, further assumptions are required to identify the average causal effect (ACE) of X on Y. Sufficient assumptions for this include: homogeneit…
▽ More
Background: Instrumental variables (IVs) can be used to provide evidence as to whether a treatment X has a causal effect on an outcome Y. Even if the instrument Z satisfies the three core IV assumptions of relevance, independence and the exclusion restriction, further assumptions are required to identify the average causal effect (ACE) of X on Y. Sufficient assumptions for this include: homogeneity in the causal effect of X on Y; homogeneity in the association of Z with X; and no effect modification (NEM). Methods: We describe the NO Simultaneous Heterogeneity (NOSH) assumption, which requires the heterogeneity in the X-Y causal effect to be mean independent of (i.e., uncorrelated with) both Z and heterogeneity in the Z-X association. This happens, for example, if there are no common modifiers of the X-Y effect and the Z-X association, and the X-Y effect is additive linear. We illustrate NOSH using simulations and by re-examining selected published studies. Results: When NOSH holds, the Wald estimand equals the ACE even if both homogeneity assumptions and NEM (which we demonstrate to be special cases of - and therefore stronger than - NOSH) are violated. Conclusions: NOSH is sufficient for identifying the ACE using IVs. Since NOSH is weaker than existing assumptions for ACE identification, doing so may be more plausible than previously anticipated.
△ Less
Submitted 11 November, 2022; v1 submitted 20 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
