Abstract
A key assumption in Mendelian randomisation is that the relationship between the genetic instruments and the outcome is fully mediated by the exposure, known as the exclusion restriction assumption. However, in epidemiological studies, the exposure is often a coarsened approximation to some latent continuous trait. For example, latent liability to schizophrenia can be thought of as underlying the binary diagnosis measure. Genetically-driven variation in the outcome can exist within categories of the exposure measurement, thus violating this assumption. We propose a framework to clarify this violation, deriving a simple expression for the resulting bias and showing that it may inflate or deflate effect estimates but will not reverse their sign. We then characterise a set of assumptions and a straight-forward method for estimating the effect of standard deviation increases in the latent exposure. Our method relies on a sensitivity parameter which can be interpreted as the genetic variance of the latent exposure. We show that this method can be applied in both the one-sample and two-sample settings. We conclude by demonstrating our method in an applied example and re-analysing two papers which are likely to suffer from this type of bias, allowing meaningful interpretation of their effect sizes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [220067/Z/20/Z]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
UK Biobank has obtained Research Tissue Bank (RTB) approval from its ethics committee. The Research Ethics Committee reference for UK Biobank is 11/NW/0382.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This research was generously supported by the Wellcome Trust [220067/Z/20/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Some changes in terminology (introduces the term 'coarsened'), minor updates to figure and funding statement.
Data Availability
A replication kit for the analyses presented in this paper is available on GitHub. Access to the full genetic and phenotype data from UK Biobank waves 1 and 2 is required to replicate all of the analyses. Information regarding access to UK Biobank can be found on their website.
