IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stabio/v13y2021i1d10.1007_s12561-020-09280-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A General Approach to Sensitivity Analysis for Mendelian Randomization

Author

Listed:
  • Weiming Zhang

    (Colorado School of Public Health)

  • Debashis Ghosh

    (Colorado School of Public Health)

Abstract

Mendelian Randomization (MR) represents a class of instrumental variable methods using genetic variants. It has become popular in epidemiological studies to account for the unmeasured confounders when estimating the effect of exposure on outcome. The success of Mendelian Randomization depends on three critical assumptions, which are difficult to verify. Therefore, sensitivity analysis methods are needed for evaluating results and making plausible conclusions. We propose a general and easy to apply approach to conduct sensitivity analysis for Mendelian Randomization studies. Bound et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 90:443–450. 10.2307/2291055, 1995) derived a formula for the asymptotic bias of the instrumental variable estimator. Based on their work, we derive a new sensitivity analysis formula. The parameters in the formula include sensitivity parameters such as the correlation between instruments and unmeasured confounder, the direct effect of instruments on outcome and the strength of instruments. In our simulation studies, we examined our approach in various scenarios using either individual SNPs or unweighted allele score as instruments. By using a previously published dataset from researchers involving a bone mineral density study, we demonstrate that our proposed method is a useful tool for MR studies, and that investigators can combine their domain knowledge with our method to obtain bias-corrected results and make informed conclusions on the scientific plausibility of their findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiming Zhang & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "A General Approach to Sensitivity Analysis for Mendelian Randomization," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 34-55, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:13:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s12561-020-09280-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s12561-020-09280-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12561-020-09280-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12561-020-09280-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michal Kolesár & Raj Chetty & John Friedman & Edward Glaeser & Guido W. Imbens, 2015. "Identification and Inference With Many Invalid Instruments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 474-484, October.
    2. Chao, John & Swanson, Norman R., 2007. "Alternative approximations of the bias and MSE of the IV estimator under weak identification with an application to bias correction," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 515-555, April.
    3. Xuran Wang & Yang Jiang & Nancy R. Zhang & Dylan S. Small, 2018. "Sensitivity analysis and power for instrumental variable studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 1150-1160, December.
    4. Small, Dylan S., 2007. "Sensitivity Analysis for Instrumental Variables Regression With Overidentifying Restrictions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 1049-1058, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hans (J.L.W.) van Kippersluis & Niels (C.A.) Rietveld, 2017. "Beyond Plausibly Exogenous," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-096/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Shuxi Zeng & Fan Li & Peng Ding, 2020. "Is being an only child harmful to psychological health?: evidence from an instrumental variable analysis of China's one‐child policy," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(4), pages 1615-1635, October.
    3. Gyuhyeong Goh & Jisang Yu, 2022. "Causal inference with some invalid instrumental variables: A quasi‐Bayesian approach," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 84(6), pages 1432-1451, December.
    4. Damian Clarke & Benjamín Matta, 2018. "Practical considerations for questionable IVs," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 18(3), pages 663-691, September.
    5. Ruoyao Shi & Zhipeng Liao, 2018. "An Averaging GMM Estimator Robust to Misspecification," Working Papers 201803, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    6. Shuxi Zeng & Fan Li & Peng Ding, 2020. "Is being an only child harmful to psychological health?: Evidence from an instrumental variable analysis of China's One-Child Policy," Papers 2005.09130, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    7. Hyunseung Kang & Youjin Lee & T. Tony Cai & Dylan S. Small, 2022. "Two robust tools for inference about causal effects with invalid instruments," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 24-34, March.
    8. Yiqi Lin & Frank Windmeijer & Xinyuan Song & Qingliang Fan, 2022. "On the instrumental variable estimation with many weak and invalid instruments," Papers 2207.03035, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    9. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro, 2012. "Specification Tests with Weak and Invalid Instruments," MPRA Paper 40185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Sonia Laszlo, 2005. "Self-employment earnings and returns to education in rural Peru," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 1247-1287.
    11. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.
    12. Sophie van Huellen & Duo Qin, 2019. "Compulsory Schooling and Returns to Education: A Re-Examination," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Iglesias Emma M., 2011. "Constrained k-class Estimators in the Presence of Weak Instruments," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, September.
    14. Brigham Frandsen & Lars Lefgren & Emily Leslie, 2023. "Judging Judge Fixed Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 253-277, January.
    15. Richard Ashley & Christopher Parmeter, 2015. "Sensitivity analysis for inference in 2SLS/GMM estimation with possibly flawed instruments," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1153-1171, December.
    16. Anna Aizer & Joseph J. Doyle, 2015. "Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital, and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(2), pages 759-803.
    17. Mertens, Matthias & Müller, Steffen & Neuschäffer, Georg, 2022. "Identifying rent-sharing using firms' energy input mix," IWH Discussion Papers 19/2022, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    18. Kirill Borusyak & Peter Hull & Xavier Jaravel, 2022. "Quasi-Experimental Shift-Share Research Designs [Sampling-based vs. Design-based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(1), pages 181-213.
    19. Rietveld, Cornelius A. & Webbink, Dinand, 2016. "On the genetic bias of the quarter of birth instrument," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 137-146.
    20. Bun, Maurice J.G. & Windmeijer, Frank, 2011. "A comparison of bias approximations for the two-stage least squares (2SLS) estimator," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 76-79, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:13:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s12561-020-09280-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.