Strategies to investigate and mitigate collider bias in genetic and Mendelian randomization studies of disease progression
==========================================================================================================================

* Ruth E. Mitchell
* April Hartley
* Venexia M. Walker
* Apostolos Gkatzionis
* James Yarmolinsky
* Joshua A. Bell
* Amanda H. W. Chong
* Lavinia Paternoster
* Kate Tilling
* George Davey Smith

## Abstract

Genetic studies of disease progression can be used to identify factors that may influence survival or prognosis, which may differ from factors which influence on disease susceptibility. Studies of disease progression feed directly into therapeutics for disease, whereas studies of incidence inform prevention strategies. However, studies of disease progression are known to be affected by collider (also known as “index event”) bias since the disease progression phenotype can only be observed for individuals who have the disease. This applies equally to observational and genetic studies, including genome-wide association studies and Mendelian randomization analyses. In this paper, our aim is to review several statistical methods that can be used to detect and adjust for index event bias in studies of disease progression, and how they apply to genetic and Mendelian Randomization studies using both individual and summary-level data. Methods to detect the presence of index event bias include the use of negative controls, a comparison of associations between risk factors for incidence in individuals with and without the disease, and an inspection of Miami plots. Methods to adjust for the bias include inverse probability weighting (with individual-level data), or Slope-hunter and Dudbridge’s index event bias adjustment (when only summary-level data are available). We also outline two approaches for sensitivity analysis. We then illustrate how three methods to minimise bias can be used in practice with two applied examples. Our first example investigates the effects of blood lipid traits on mortality from coronary heart disease, whilst our second example investigates genetic associations with breast cancer mortality.

KEYWORDS
*   Genetics
*   case only
*   disease progression
*   collider bias
*   index event bias
*   Mendelian Randomization

## Introduction

There is a growing interest in performing genetic studies of disease progression, with initial studies suggesting that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with disease survival often differ from those associated with disease susceptibility (1-7). ‘Disease progression’, also known as disease prognosis, refers to any event occurring subsequent to disease incidence, such as changes in severity, and/or survival. Investigating such events necessitates performing studies restricted to individuals who have the disease of interest, *i*.*e*. cases. By design, this involves conditioning on disease incidence, causing it to become a so-called ‘collider’ variable within a causal inference framework (8). This leads to biased associations between causal risk factors for disease incidence, including inducing associations between risk factors which are truly independent of each other (not correlated) in the source population. This becomes problematic if any of these risk factors for disease incidence, measured or unmeasured, also cause disease progression, because indirect associations may be induced between risk factors for disease incidence and disease progression (red dashed line in **Figure 1**). Therefore, a risk factor which is causal only for incidence may falsely appear to cause progression entirely through an induced association with another causal risk factor for incidence (i.e. a noncausal path) (Risk factor 2 in **Figure 1**). This can result in biased estimates of the true causal associations between risk factors and disease progression (8, 9); this bias has been termed index-event bias (defined in Box 1). An example of index-event bias is in studies of coronary heart disease (CHD) progression where the restriction of analyses to CHD cases only (*i*.*e*. conditioning on disease state) could induce associations between truly independent CHD risk factors. This could explain the so-called ‘obesity paradox’ where higher body mass index (BMI) is associated with longer survival amongst those with CHD, despite higher BMI being associated with shorter survival in the general population. Indeed, lower levels of other risk factors for CHD measured in individuals with high BMI may be sufficient to induce an association of higher BMI with longer survival (10-12).

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F1)

Figure 1: Directed acyclic graph demonstrating the introduction of collider bias in observational case only studies.
Conditioning on disease incidence iduces the association between previously independent causal risk factor 1 and causal risk factor 2, shown by the dashed line. Because risk factor 1 is also a causal risk factor for disease progression, a case-only setting has led to a biased association between risk factor 2 and disease progression via the path RF1-> RF2->DP. The association of the risk factor 2 with disease progression when conditioning on incidence is entirely due to collider bias.

The model-dependent nature of the presence and direction of index event bias should be noted (13, 14). Where two independent risk factors are causes of a binary collider variable C, collider (index event) bias will not be induced by conditioning on C if the two risk factors are perfectly multiplicative/log additive in their effect on C on a risk ratio scale (13). In case-only studies, disease incidence plays the role of the collider C. Different variables may be viewed as colliders in other types of studies; for example, studies affected by survival bias are effectively conditioned on individuals surviving to study onset and collider (index event) bias in such studies is avoided when the two risk factors are multiplicative in their effects on survival (15). Moreover, collider (index event) bias is expected to induce a positive correlation between the two risk factors if they are supra-multiplicative in their effects on disease incidence, and a negative correlation if the two risk factors are sub-multiplicative in their effects on disease incidence (15). The extent of the resultant collider (index event) bias will therefore be greater the further away the associations of risk factors with the collider are from the multiplicative/log additive risk model (13). In chronic disease epidemiology, many causal risk factors may be expected to have a sub-multiplicative impact on the incidence of disease.

In the case of a genetic epidemiological study of disease progression, index event bias is potentially problematic when a genetic variant causes the onset/incidence of disease, in the presence of a measured/unmeasured common cause (*i*.*e*. confounder) for disease incidence and progression. This situation creates spurious and/or biased associations between that genetic variant and the progression phenotype (16, 17). **Figure 2a** illustrates this: in case-only studies, when conditioning on disease incidence, and when a confounder for incidence and for progression (risk factor 1) is present in the sample being analysed, any genetic variant (risk factor 2) which causes incidence will display an induced association with that risk factor. Collider bias in this context has opened up the pathway of genetic variant -> risk factor 1 -> disease progression and the genetic variant will falsely appear to be associated with progression. Importantly, this confounder could be another genetic variant itself, and therefore, in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of case-only samples, more SNPs can appear to be associated with progression than truly are (**Figure 2b**). In another scenario, this spurious association through a non-causal pathway could be in addition to the direct true effect of the SNP on progression, inducing a biased association between the SNP and disease progression, *i*.*e*., an overestimate or underestimate of the true causal association (**Figure 2c**). Indeed, a study investigating the association of known common type 2 diabetes variants with BMI (a strong risk factor for type 2 diabetes) found three overestimated and one underestimated associations among 11 type 2 diabetes risk alleles when comparing to a non-diabetic population (16). Another example uses a polygenic risk score to examine associations between CHD genetic risk variants and cardiovascular outcomes and found that these differ when examined in those with and without prior CHD (18). These studies highlight the need to address this bias by detecting and accounting for its presence in case-only studies.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F2)

Figure 2: Directed acyclic graph demonstrating the introduction of collider bias in genetic case only studies.
(A) Conditioning on disease incidence induces the association between a previously independent casual risk factor and causal genetic variant for disease incidence, shown by the dashed line. Because risk factor 1 is also a casual risk factor for disease progression (a confounder of disease incidence and progression), a case-only setting has led to a biased association between the genetic variant and disease progression via the path Genetic variant->Measured/unmeasured confounder->Disease progression. The association of the genetic variant with disease progression when conditioning on incidence is entirely due to collider bias. (B) Collider bias will induce an association between genetic variants that both cause disease incidence. This will make a non-causal genetic variant (risk factor 2) to appear associated with disease progression. (C) A third scenario is where this induced path is in addition to the direct effect of the genetic variant on disease progression.

Index event bias also has implications for applied genetic epidemiological analyses downstream of GWAS, such as Mendelian randomization (MR) (19-21). A consequence of not adjusting for index event bias at the stage of conducting a GWAS would mean that biased association estimates of SNPs with disease progression could be used in MR analyses and result in potentially misleading causal estimates of risk factors with disease progression outcomes. In a two sample MR setting, only the SNP-outcome (disease progression) estimates will be affected by index event bias as the SNP-exposure estimates will be taken from a GWAS that is not restricted to cases only. However, in a one sample MR setting of a study of case-only only sample if the exposure causes disease incidence, then both the SNP-exposure and the SNP-outcome (disease progression) estimates will be biased. In addition, the MR assumption that the genetic instrument is independent of factors that confound the association of the exposure with the outcome would be violated given that conditioning on disease incidence has opened up the pathway of genetic instrument -> risk factor 1 -> disease progression (**Figure 3**). This would be true for a single genetic variant as well as a combination of variants within a polygenic risk score (PRS) instrument; the use of such scores may increase the potential for this bias. This would invalidate the MR study and lead to an over-or under-estimate of the causal effect of risk factors for the disease progression outcome of interest (21).

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F3)

Figure 3: Directed acyclic graph demonstrating the introduction of collider bias in Mendelian Randomization case only studies.
In Mendelian Randomization analyses, the exposure is proxied by a causal genetic instrument. Conditioning on disease incidence induces the association between the previously independent genetic instrument and a common cause for disease incidence and disease progression, shown by the dashed line. This would violate the independence MR assumption invalidating the analysis.

Here, we aim to review several strategies which are currently available to investigate and mitigate index event bias in GWAS and MR studies of disease progression and advise on the interpretation of results from such studies. Although other sources of selection bias can be an issue when studying disease progression, including loss-to-follow-up and missing data (22, 23), this review focuses on index event bias. We start with the need to investigate if there is bias in the case-only population. Where index-event bias is detected, we discuss three methods which aim to minimise index-event bias, according to the data that are available (individual-level or summary-level). We next outline two sensitivity analyses that have been developed to determine the magnitude of bias that would have to be present to explain any observed associations with progression. We conclude with two applied examples of disease progression studies -one concerning blood lipid traits and survival in CHD, and the other concerning breast cancer prognosis.

## Detecting index event bias

Index event bias can be investigated using negative controls. For example, with access to individual-level data in the case-only sample, a GWAS of age and sex can be performed (24) as they are both common (almost ubiquitous) risk factors for disease onset. Age is not genetically-determined and therefore the presence of strong associations between SNPs and age in the case-only sample can only be an artefact of index event bias. The presence of associations of autosomal SNPs with sex, reflecting differences in allele frequencies between men and women, would be further evidence for index event bias. Identification of sex-associated autosomal loci has highlighted potential bias due to sex differences in participation in large cohort studies (24). It should be noted that these analyses do rely on a large enough sample size so that the analyses have sufficient statistical power. If analyses are underpowered, one cannot be sure that a lack of association, e.g. between SNPs and age, in the case-only population is due to underpowered analyses or the true absence of index event bias. Therefore, power calculations should be performed prior to these analyses. **Figure 4** is an illustration investigating the presence of collider bias in 11,085 myocardial infarction cases in UK Biobank. The signal seen in chromosome 5 associated with age suggests that index event bias may have been induced in this sample (**Figure 4a**). When known, genetic variants strongly associated with disease incidence could be used as negative controls. For example, in a study involving cases of dementia, a GWAS of the ApoE genotype could be performed.

![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F4)

Figure 4: (A) Manhattan plot of GWAS for age at recruitment in myocardial infarction (MI) incidence cases only in UK Biobank.
Cases were defined as individuals who had had an acute MI event using the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes (ICD-10: I21.0-I21.9). GWAS was performed using Plink. This plot illustrates one genetic signal on chromosome 5 that is shown to be strongly associated with age at recruitment (P < 5×10−8). This signal could potentially be induced due to collider bias as, in a general random population a GWAS for age should not show any signal. However, this signal could also be due to biases other than collider bias. **(B) Manhattan plot of GWAS for sex in MI incidence cases only in UK Biobank**. Cases were defined as individuals who had had an acute MI event using the ICD10 codes I21.0-I21.9. This plot does not show any strong signal associated with sex, suggesting that no evidence of collider bias is detected.

In addition, known risk factors for disease initiation can be used as a diagnostic for index event bias. These can be either phenotypic risk factors, such as smoking or BMI, or genetic variants strongly associated with disease incidence, or with causes of disease incidence. Index event bias will induce spurious associations between such risk factors in the case-only population, and these associations can be compared to those from an independent dataset, not restricted to cases. Differences between associations in the cases and the independent dataset will be suggestive of index event bias. Datasets with large sample sizes and deep phenotype data on both cases and non-cases provide external data to explore how divergent the association between risk factors is from the multiplicative/log additive model, although worth being aware of the effect of confounding or measurement error in these exploratory analysis. This can indicate the likely quantitative effect of collider (index event) bias. When using this diagnostic, it is worth being aware of the recruitment process in each dataset, as this will change the risk factors chosen to test *e*.*g*. there will be differences in why patients were recruited to a trial versus if they are in a general population-based longitudinal study or sampled through hospital data.

Without access to individual-level data, but with the full set of results from a GWAS of both incidence and progression of the disease of interest, index event bias can still be examined by comparing the magnitude of the effect of a SNP on disease progression with the magnitude of the effect of that same SNP on disease incidence. If there is strong evidence for an association of a SNP with disease incidence, then we cannot rule out the possibility that the association of that SNP with progression is purely an artefact of selection bias (**Figure 2b**) or that the magnitude of association is biased by selection (**Figure 2c**). Associations with progression for SNPs not associated with disease incidence will not suffer collider bias. Miami plots can be generated to visually inspect and compare SNP associations for disease incidence and disease progression on a genome-wide scale. These plots are an extension of a Manhattan plot, where *p*-values are plotted on the -log10 scale. The Miami plot will present the *p*-values for incidence on the -log10 scale and the *p*-values for progression on a log10 scale, for all available SNPs. These can be produced using publicly available code within the software EasyStrata (25). An example is shown in **Figure 5** plotting the GWAS results of smoking initiation (top) and smoking cessation in a population of smokers (bottom). As well as comparing across the genome for a GWAS, this methodology can also identify potential index event bias in an MR analysis, with comparisons restricted to the instrument(s) for the risk factor of interest. As described for GWAS, a lack of evidence for an association between the instrument for the hypothesized risk factor and disease incidence is evidence against the presence of index event bias *(i*.*e*. the risk factor may be specific for disease prognosis), whereas if the instrument is also related to disease incidence we cannot be sure that any relationship with the outcome is not an artefact of index event bias.

![Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F5)

Figure 5: An example of a Miami plot comparing results from a GWAS of smoking initiation (top) and a GWAS of smoking cessation (bottom) in a population of smokers.
Plotted using publicly available summary statistics of Liu et al (54). There are several loci strongly associated with smoking cessation where there is no strong evidence for an association with smoking initiation (e.g. chr11, 19), suggesting that the association between these loci and smoking cessation is not the product of collider bias. However, further inspection of the magnitude of effect and confidence intervals is required to determine that these loci are not associated with initiation. The locus on chromosome 20 reaching genome-wide significance also appears to be associated with smoking initiation, albeit not at genome-wide significance, suggesting that the association of this locus with smoking cessation may be affected by collider bias.

Even if these methods do not identify any evidence for index event bias in the case-only population, the next step would be to perform the sensitivity analyses detailed below, to determine the magnitude of bias that would need to be present to explain the observed associations. If there is evidence for index event bias, the subsequent section reviews methods that can be applied to attempt to overcome this index event bias.

## Sensitivity analyses to determine magnitude of bias

Here we present two sensitivity analyses that can be used to examine the magnitude of bias.

### Smith and VanderWeele method

A sensitivity analysis for index-event bias was proposed by Smith and VanderWeele in 2019 (26). This approach is not specific to genetically informed studies of disease progression but can be used in any epidemiological study. Their approach can only be applied in studies where the outcome is binary, and the causal parameter of interest is a risk ratio, odds ratio, or risk difference. Smith and VanderWeele derive a bound for the true risk ratio (or odds ratio or risk difference), which can be computed using the observed risk ratio and an additional user-specified variable, which represents a potentially unobserved confounder or mediator for the association between the outcome and selection (disease incidence, in case-only studies). This unobserved confounder, U, must be such that the outcome is independent of selection (*i*.*e*. disease incidence) conditional on the risk factor and U. This is the same as the unmeasured confounders in Figure 2. The effects of the confounder on the outcome and selection need to be elicited to compute the bound, but otherwise the method makes no parametric modelling assumptions. As an additional diagnostic, Smith and VanderWeele describe how to compute E-values for collider bias, which quantify how strong the selection effects should be for a risk ratio to take the observed value, if the true effect of the exposure on outcome is null. An online calculator to compute risk ratio bounds and E-values is available at [http://selection-bias.louisahsmith.com](http://selection-bias.louisahsmith.com). The use of risk ratio bounds has been advocated in case-control studies with biased selection of controls (27), and the method was recently extended to account for confounding bias and measurement error, in addition to index-event bias (28).

### Quantitative bias analysis

As with the E-value approach, one form of quantitative bias analysis attempts to quantify the magnitude of bias needed for the observed MR estimates to occur if the association was truly null, using simulations. For the simulations, individual level data are generated for cases and non-cases, based on user-specified assumptions about the factors associated with disease incidence and prognosis. Note that, as these data are simulated, this approach can be applied to one-or two-sample MR. By repeating this process for multiple simulated samples, investigators can obtain a distribution of estimates that are solely due to the effects of index-event bias. This information, presented alongside the main estimates, allows those appraising a study to assess whether the MR estimates represent a plausible association or are more likely a consequence of bias. This has previously been demonstrated in the literature by Noyce et al in their study of the relationship between BMI and risk of Parkinson’s disease, where it is referred to as ‘frailty modelling’ as the bias in their example was thought to be caused by survival effects (29).

## Accounting for index event bias

In this section, we review methods to adjust for index-event bias when individual-level data are available, and then explore methods for when either summary-level or individual-level data are available. A summary of methods described in this section is presented in **Table 1**.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/T1)

Table 1: Summary of methods for detecting and accounting for index event bias and sensitivity analyses to determine the magnitude of bias required to negate observed effect estimates

### Inverse probability weighting (IPW)

IPW can help to address index event bias in case-only studies through the creation of a pseudo-sample where individuals are weighted according to the probability of having the disease of interest (30). The weighted pseudo-sample aims to mimic a situation where every individual has the same probability of contacting the disease; therefore, the distribution of sociodemographic and behavioural factors in the weighted sample will be similar to that in the overall population. Consequently, IPW will down-weight over-represented individuals (i.e. those most likely to have the disease) and up-weight under-represented individuals (i.e. those least likely to have the disease) (31, 32). The probability that an individual is included in the case-only sample is estimated by fitting a statistical model (e.g. logistic regression) for disease incidence. Individuals in the case-only sample are then weighted by the inverse of their estimated probability of disease. To estimate the model used to calculate the probability weightings, at least some information about non-cases must be known. IPW can only truly overcome index event bias when all causes of disease incidence related to the other variables in the analysis model are both known and measured within the target population, and when the incidence is correctly modelled (including interactions, non-linearities, etc.). Thus, IPW involves similarly strong assumptions as used for causal inference in conventional observational studies of disease incidence or progression, e.g., with multivariable regression models.

Once a weighted sample has been generated, analysis methods such as MR can then be applied. For example, two-stage least squares estimates can be computed using weighted linear regression instead of ordinary linear regression. IPW can adjust for index-event bias in MR provided the probabilities of disease are accurately estimated (33, 34). In practice, IPW can be useful in case-only studies that are nested within a cohort study (e.g. studies utilizing individual-level data from the UK Biobank). However, the reliance on individual-level data means that IPW often cannot be used in two-sample MR studies.

### Dudbridge *et al* method

The Dudbridge *et al* method is based on the premise that the association between a SNP and progression is proportional to the true effect of the SNP on progression and a bias that is linear in the effect of the SNP on incident disease (12). In equation form this can be summarised as follows: ![Formula][1]</img>  where ![Graphic][2]</img> is the effect estimate for a SNP from a GWAS of progression, ![Graphic][3]</img> is the effect of the SNP on incidence, ![Graphic][4]</img> is the true effect of the SNP on progression (the effect of interest), and *b* is the slope from a regression of ![Graphic][5]</img> on ![Graphic][6]</img> for all independent SNPs and is the bias correction factor. The true effect of the SNP on progression is therefore a combination of the intercept and residual from this regression line (12).

The method developed by Dudbridge et al uses all SNPs available to determine the correction factor (12). Linkage disequilibrium (LD) clumping, based on the *p*-value for the SNP effect on incidence, is required prior to analysis to restrict the regression to independent SNPs, although the correction factor can then be applied to all SNPs. As well as the assumption that the SNPs are independent, this method also assumes a linear effect of the SNP on both incidence and progression (with no interactions), that there is no correlation between SNP incidence and SNP-progression effects, and that the effect of common causes of incidence and progression (genetic and non-genetic confounding) is constant across all SNPs. The assumption of no correlation between SNP-incidence and SNP-progression effects is violated for diseases where the same biological pathways, at least in part, contribute to incidence and progression. The assumption of constant confounding across all SNPs may not be true if there is a genetic correlation between incidence and progression, as the genetic component of the unmeasured confounding will be weaker for SNPs that are strongly associated with both incidence and progression. An example where these assumptions would not be met is cardiovascular disease, given that lowering LDL cholesterol reduces risk of major vascular events in both primary and secondary prevention trials (35), and thus for SNPs influencing LDL cholesterol there will be a very strong positive correlation between their associations with vascular disease incidence and risk of secondary events.

The method can be performed using an open-source R package ([https://github.com/DudbridgeLab/indexevent](https://github.com/DudbridgeLab/indexevent)) and requires full summary statistics from a GWAS of disease incidence and a GWAS of disease progression, which can be generated from independent or overlapping samples. These summary statistics can be used to perform downstream analyses, such as two-sample MR.

### Slope-hunter method

The Slope-hunter method developed by Mahmoud *et al* (36) is again based on the premise that the association between a SNP and progression measured in a GWAS can be estimated from the true effect of the SNP on progression and bias linear to the effect of the SNP on incidence (12, 36). However, the Slope-hunter method extends the algorithms generated by Dudbridge et al and attempts to overcome the limitation of the strong assumption of no genetic correlation between incidence and progression (36). Slope-hunter aims to partition all independent SNPs affecting incidence into two categories using cluster-based methods:

1.  SNPs only affecting incidence;

2.  SNPs affecting both incidence and progression;

The correction factor is estimated from category 1 SNPs only, assuming unmeasured confounding across these SNPs. The correction factor is estimated as the slope of the regression line of disease progression associations on disease incidence associations for this restricted set of SNPs. This correction factor can be applied to all SNPs. The Slope-hunter method does not assume that disease incidence and progression are not genetically correlated, but does assume that the SNP effects on both incidence and progression are linear, with no interactions. This is often the case in a logistic model when per-allele effect sizes are small. An additional assumption of the Slope-hunter method is that the variance in disease incidence explained by category 1 SNPs is at least as large as that explained by category 2 SNPs.

Slope-hunter can be performed using an open-source R package ([https://github.com/Osmahmoud/SlopeHunter/](https://github.com/Osmahmoud/SlopeHunter/)) and, like the Dudbridge *et al* method, requires full summary statistics from a GWAS of disease incidence and a GWAS of disease progression. Both methods are robust to sample overlap and therefore can be used with summary statistics derived from the same population as well as independent populations. Summary statistics from these methods are suitable for use in downstream analyses, such as two-sample MR.

## Applied examples of mitigating index event bias

### Lipid traits and secondary prevention of CHD

We aimed to examine the existence and mitigation of index event bias in an applied MR study using individual-level data from the UK Biobank cohort (UKB, see **Methods**). We chose to estimate the effects of two well-known lipid traits, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), on the risk of CHD mortality, and potential bias induced by selecting on individuals with a history of CHD (the index event). These exposures were chosen because strong evidence exists for both in relation to CHD mortality from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lipid-modifying drug therapies, which were conducted among people with a history of CHD, thus providing a valuable (likely unbiased) standard for comparison. This RCT evidence indicates that, among people with CHD history, LDL-C raises CHD mortality risk (37), whereas HDL-C does not alter CHD mortality risk (38). Because LDL-C causes CHD onset, we expected that conditioning on CHD history would induce potential for index event bias for LDL-C estimates (**Figure 6**). In contrast, because HDL-C likely does not cause CHD onset (i.e., no effect on disease incidence), we expected that conditioning on CHD history would not induce potential for index event bias for HDL-C estimates. We verified a positive effect of LDL-C, and a null effect of HDL-C when adjusting for triglycerides and apolipoprotein B (given expectations of pleiotropy) (39), on CHD onset in UKB (**Supplementary Information**).

![Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F6.medium.gif)

[Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F6)

Figure 6. Contrasting scenarios in which index event bias is or is not expected, based on the likely causality of exposures for disease onset.
Solid black lines indicate assumed causality. Light grey lines indicate assumed lack of causality. Dashed black line indicates induced association. Dashed light grey line indicates lack of induced association. Boxes indicate a variable which has been conditioned on.

Among UKB participants with a history of CHD, we examined the effects of lipids on risk of CHD mortality in an MR framework, using two-stage least squares predictor substitution regression models, where in a first-stage linear regression model the exposure, e.g., LDL-C is regressed on a genetic risk score (GRS) for LDL-C, plus age, sex, and the first ten genetic principal components (GPCs). The predicted values from that model were then entered into a logistic regression model as an exposure (plus age, sex, GPCs) with CHD mortality as the outcome. Standard errors were bootstrapped using 100 replications. We expected these prognosis models to create potential for index event bias for LDL-C (because it causes CHD onset), but not for HDL-C (because it does not cause CHD onset; **Figure 6**). The pattern of results when conditioning on CHD history was not as expected given the potential for index event bias, however (**Table 2**). Results of these MR models suggest that higher LDL-C (per standard deviation, SD) raises the odds of CHD mortality, by 2.12 (95% CI = 1.20, 3.73) times higher (**Table 2**). In contrast, higher HDL-C (per SD) appeared to reduce the odds of CHD mortality, and this did not attenuate towards the null upon adjustment for triglycerides and apolipoprotein B, e.g., the estimate for HDL-C was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.66, 1.16) before adjustment and 0.62 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.78) after adjustment (**Supplementary Information**). This inverse effect for multivariable-adjusted HDL-C is not consistent with null effects on CHD mortality risk seen in RCTs of HDL-C modification by drug therapies (37, 38) and may reflect a heightened potential for pleiotropy when conditioning on CHD history.

View this table:
[Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/T2)

Table 2 One-sample MR estimates of the effect of lipid traits on CHD mortality risk among adults with a history of CHD in UK Biobank (N=20,552 eligible)

To attempt to mitigate any index event bias induced from conditioning on CHD history, we applied IPW adjustments to MR models of LDL-C and HDL-C with CHD mortality (using predictors and criteria described in **Supplementary Information**). Results of these IPW adjustments for LDL-C provided estimates which were directionally consistent with IPW-unadjusted results with modest attenuation towards the null (2.12 (95% CI = 1.20, 3.73) before IPW and 1.76 (1.00, 3.11) after IPW). For univariable HDL-C, the point estimate changed from negative (0.88) to positive (1.08) upon adjustment, although confidence intervals were imprecise (**Table 2**). The estimate for multivariable-adjusted HDL-C also attenuated towards the null, this being 0.62 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.78) before IPW and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.64, 1.23) after IPW (**Table 2**).

The use of statin medications could potentially complicate the interpretation of effect estimates. Statins are commonly prescribed in adulthood to reduce LDL-C (often on the basis of total cholesterol and HDL-C values) and are known to influence the risk of CHD onset and mortality (37). The overall prevalence of statin use in UKB was 14%, and use was far more common among participants with vs. without a history of CHD (at 57.3% vs. 11.3% respectively). The prevalence of statin use was also high among participants with a CHD history who then died of CHD (68.7%), whereas statin use was lower among those without a CHD history who did not die of CHD (11.3%). LDL-C and HDL-C could each plausibly influence the likelihood of being prescribed statins among adults with CHD history; this was examined and confirmed using one-sample MR in the same UKB data (**Supplementary Information** and **Supplementary Table 2**), whereby higher LDL-C strongly raised the odds of using statins (OR = 5.71, 95% CI = 3.62, 9.00) and higher HDL-C lowered these odds (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.71, 0.95). Conditioning on statin use via exclusions or stratifications would be problematic, however, as this could heighten the potential for index event bias given the likely role of statin use as a mediator.

Altogether, the results of this applied example of MR using individual-level data suggest that the impact of index event bias from conditioning on disease status can be modest. Indeed, the extent of induced bias will depend on how divergent the joint effect of lipid traits with other causal risk factors are from the multiplicative/log-additive model, with substantial index event bias expected the more divergent they are. In UKB, higher LDL-C appeared to raise CHD mortality risk among adults with a history of CHD, in line with results of RCTs. If index event bias were severe in this situation, we might expect an inverse effect, e.g., with LDL-C appearing protective against CHD mortality risk among adults with CHD history. Index event bias may still alter the magnitude of a true effect, however, and so we applied IPW adjustments to LDL-C estimates. This resulted in modest attenuations of effect size, with 95% CIs that overlapped those of initial estimates. Modest attenuations towards the null may be more expected than full attenuations following such IPW adjustments given the necessarily incomplete set of predictive factors on which they are based. In contrast to LDL-C, conditioning on CHD history is not expected to induce index-event bias for HDL-C with CHD mortality, because HDL-C is likely non-causal for CHD onset. Our MR effect estimates for HDL-C (univariable and with multivariable adjustment for triglycerides and apolipoprotein B) with CHD mortality were inverse among adults with CHD history, however, which is unexpected given null results from RCTs. These estimates were substantially attenuated upon IPW adjustment. This may reflect a heightened potential for pleiotropy when making such stratifications, suggesting that confounding and other forms of selection bias given the unrepresentativeness of UKB may be greater concerns than index event bias in this applied example.

### Breast cancer susceptibility PRS and breast cancer-specific mortality

We evaluated the association of a breast cancer susceptibility PRS with subsequent disease progression using summary genetic association data on breast cancer susceptibility in 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls and breast-cancer specific mortality in 96,661 cancer cases (7,976 events) (5, 40). A PRS for breast cancer susceptibility was constructed using 339 SNPs associated with breast cancer risk at genome-wide significance (*p* < 5.0 × 10−8, r2 < 0.10). Summary statistics for SNPs comprising this PRS were then extracted from the breast cancer progression GWAS and harmonised across datasets by orienting effect estimates in relation to the same allele, resulting in 318 SNPs. In this case-only analysis, the PRS was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer-specific mortality (per unit increase in natural log odds breast cancer liability: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.96).

To explore whether this finding was influenced by index event bias, we used two methods to detect and account for this bias: the Dudbridge *et al* method and Slope-hunter method. Summary statistics for breast cancer risk and breast cancer progression were harmonised across datasets then pruned for LD (r2 < 0.10), resulting in 94,744 SNPs. SNP-progression effects were then regressed on SNP-risk effects using a SIMEX adjustment for regression dilution to generate a correction factor for SNP-progression effects (under the assumption of no genetic correlation between breast cancer risk and breast cancer-specific mortality). SNP effects on progression were then adjusted using this correction factor (−0.013, 95% CI - 0.014 to -0.013) and PRS analyses were re-performed which generated a revised estimate of HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.97) for the effect of the breast cancer susceptibility PRS on breast cancer-specific mortality.

Using the Slope-hunter method, a correction factor was also generated using a subset of the 94,744 SNPs that only influenced breast cancer risk (*i*.*e*. that have no effect on breast cancer-specific mortality, termed “hunted” SNPs), thus being robust to the presence of genetic correlations between disease incidence and progression (Slope-hunter fitted model showing cluster assignment of each SNP provided in **Figure 7**). In contrast to the Dudbridge *et al* method, use of Slope-hunter generated a larger adjustment factor of -0.243 (95% CI - 0.361 to -0.126). When PRS analyses were re-performed using SNP-progression effects adjusted for this correction factor, this generated a revised estimate of HR 1.15 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.22) for the effect of the breast cancer susceptibility PRS on breast cancer-specific mortality. Sensitivity analyses performed using different *p*-value thresholds to generate correction factors for both Dudbridge *et al* and Slope-hunter methods (along with corresponding changes to distributions of cluster sizes and “entropy” values for the Slope-hunter method) are presented in **Table 3**.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/T3)

Table 3. Sensitivity analyses employing different *p*-value thresholds to generate correction factors across Dudbridge *et al* and Slope-hunter methods examining the effect of a breast cancer susceptibility PRS on breast cancer-specific mortality

![Figure 7.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F7.medium.gif)

[Figure 7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274166/F7)

Figure 7. Slope-hunter fitted model showing assignment of each SNP to “hunted” or “pleiotropic” clusters for an analysis examining the effect of a breast cancer susceptibility PRS on breast cancer-specific mortality.
“Hunted” refers to SNPs that only affect incidence (here, breast cancer risk) and “pleiotropic” refers to SNPs that affect both incidence and prognosis (here, breast cancer risk and breast cancer-specific mortality). In this example there were 5 hunted SNPs (i.e. those used to generate a “correction factor” for index event bias) and 171 pleiotropic SNPs.

This example demonstrates the potential for large differences in findings when using Dudbridge et al and Slope-hunter methods to correct for index event bias and we recommend further examination of the assumptions behind each method, and sensitivity analyses. For example, the Dudbridge method is more sensitive to the presence of genetic correlation between disease incidence and progression, whereas the Slope-hunter method assumption is that there are no common causes of incidence and prognosis that explain more of the variance in incidence than the SNPs that only affect incidence. Neither of these assumptions can be verified with the observed data, so sensitivity analyses could explore their implications. Sensitivity analyses using the methods described earlier in this review could be used to either suggest plausible selection effects (i.e. provide estimates of the effects of U on incidence and prognosis) and re-estimate the effects of interest, or to investigate what magnitude of selection bias would be needed to have observed the negative effect of PRS for breast cancer on mortality, if in fact there was no effect.

## Conclusions

We have highlighted the potential for bias in genetic studies of disease progression due to their case-only design. We reviewed methods available to detect this index event bias (‘Detecting index event bias’), using either individual-level or summary-level data, and showed how access to individual-level data allows a more thorough investigation of biased associations between risk factors for disease incidence. Next, we outlined two sensitivity analyses (‘Sensitivity analyses’) to assess the magnitude of bias that would have to be present to explain observed associations in an MR analysis; we recommend that results of these analyses are presented alongside causal effect estimates for any case-only MR analysis. We then discussed methods to account for this bias (‘Accounting for index event bias’) in both GWAS and MR analyses and highlighted the assumptions associated with each method, such as knowledge and availability of all risk factors for IPW analysis in a single-sample setting and assumptions of linearity for the summary-level methods. Finally, we applied methods that account for and minimise bias (IPW, Dudbridge, Slope-hunter) to two real-data examples.

Our first application was an individual-level data analysis of the effect of LDL-C and HDL-C on CHD mortality in which we applied the IPW method. We showed how the magnitude of the estimated effect of LDL-C on CHD mortality is reduced, albeit modestly, when using IPW to account for index event bias, in the opposite direction to that predicted from the likely direction of collider bias. This analysis is complicated by two factors, namely statin use, and the fact that the incident event (CHD onset) happened before data on the exposures were collected. Thus, the IPW may in fact be modelling variables affected by CHD onset, rather than vice versa. Similarly, earlier LDL-C/HDL-C measures affect statin use at baseline, which is likely to also have been affected by the index event, and to cause later mortality. This highlights how it may be difficult to generate accurate causal effect estimates in realistically complex situations. In this example, a two-sample MR (rather than one sample) might avoid some of the issues around LDL-C/HDL-C being affected by the index event. Further methods are needed to address the issue of bias due to pre index event statin use being both caused by pre-index event measures of exposure and being a cause of the index event, and subsequent statin use to be caused by pre-index event exposure and the index event (and likely an interaction between them). These situations are potentially further complicated by the fact that the data used here (UKB) are known to be highly selected from the general population via non-representative participation, and are thus subject to other forms of selection bias.

Although the Dudbridge and Slope-hunter methods can be applied to both individual and summary level data, we chose to illustrate them in our second applied example using summary-level data. We showed how the Slope-hunter and Dudbridge et al correction factors produced different estimates of the effect of a breast cancer PRS on breast cancer-specific mortality. This highlights the need to carefully examine assumptions of each method, perform both, and follow up with sensitivity analyses.

It should be noted that in this paper we have focused on one type of selection bias, index event bias, and there are other forms of selection bias to consider in genetic studies of disease progression, which were beyond the scope of this review. For example, studies of disease progression require a population of individuals who have survived long enough to have developed disease and to allow sufficient time for disease to progress, meaning that such studies are often restricted to an older population and can be susceptible to survival bias. Some of the methods presented in this review could also be applied in the context of survival bias, for example IPW can be applied so long as data are available for those individuals who did not survive (although this assumes that every factor predicting survival has been measured) (41). Further methods to deal with survival bias in MR studies have been discussed previously (41-44). Additionally, analyses of disease progression require longitudinal data, therefore they can be vulnerable to bias due to missing data and loss-to-follow-up. Equally, bias can arise in MR studies when the genetic variants differ in their association to the exposure in cases of the disease versus the general population (45). An additional consideration when performing a MR analysis with disease progression as the outcome would be to verify that the SNP-exposure associations are the same in cases as in a healthy population as there may be effect modification by factors relating to having the disease. As a consequence, the SNP-exposure estimates from a healthy population would not be correct.

In conclusion, our review summarizes established approaches for detecting and adjusting for index event bias in genetic studies of disease progression. We hope that our work will provide a useful resource to applied researchers working on such studies.

## Methods

We used individual-level data from the UK Biobank (UKB), a prospective cohort study in which 502,549 adults aged 38-69 years were recruited between 2006-2010 via 22 assessment centres across England, Wales, and Scotland (46) (∼5% response rate (8, 47)). The study design, participants, and quality control (QC) are detailed elsewhere (48). Participants provided written informed consent. Ethical approval was obtained from the Northwest Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (11/NW/0382). Data were accessed via application number 16391.

Nearly all participants provided blood samples at the 2006-2010 clinic for genotyping and biochemistry analyses. Genotype was measured from serum samples using a genome-wide array (UK Biobank Axiom Array) with imputation to the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel. Pre-imputation QC, phasing, and imputation are described elsewhere (49). Our analyses were restricted to autosomal variants using graded filtering with varying imputation quality for different allele frequency ranges (50). 814 individuals with a mismatch between genetic and reported sex, and with sex-chromosome aneuploidy, were excluded. We further restricted to individuals of ‘European’ ancestry as defined by k-means clustering using the first 4 principal components provided by UKB (50). We included the largest cluster from this analysis (n=464,708 eligible for subsequent analyses).

We constructed genetic risk scores (GRS) for LDL-C and HDL-C from a published genome-wide association study (GWAS) that excludes UKB (51), including 33 and 44 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), respectively (52). For the purposes of multivariable MR adjustments for HDL-C, we additionally constructed a GRS for triglycerides based on 16 SNPs (51) and for apolipoprotein B based on 14 SNPs from targeted metabolomics (nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy) that also excludes UKB (52). GRSs were made using PLINK 2.0, with GWAS effect alleles and betas as weightings. Standard scoring was applied by multiplying the effect allele count (or probabilities if imputed) at each SNP (values 0, 1, or 2) by its weighting, summing these, and dividing by the total number of SNPs used. The score therefore reflects the average per-SNP effect on the exposure. GRSs and their respective exposure traits were each standardised into z-score (SD) units for analyses.

CHD history was defined using inpatient ICD-10 codes as having developed before the date of baseline clinic assessment a primary or secondary diagnosis of CHD (I20, I200, I201, I208, I209, I21, I210, I211, I212, I213, I214, I219, I22, I220, I221, I228, I229, I23, I230, I231, I232, I233, I234, I235, I236, I238, I24, I240, I241, I248, I249, I251, I252, I255, I256, I258, I259). Mortality with CHD as a primary or secondary cause was defined using the same ICD-10 codes, with a median (range) follow up time of 11.2 (0.01 - 14.1) years. Among 357,840 participants eligible for current analyses (i.e., who had data on either lipid exposure and its GRS, plus age, sex, genetic PCs, CHD history status, CHD mortality status, and weightings for IPW adjustments), 20,552 (5.7%) had a pre-baseline history of CHD, and 2,625 (0.7%) later had a recorded death from CHD. Of those who died of CHD, 44.5% had a recorded CHD history, whilst 55.5% did not.

To verify expectations of the causality of lipids for CHD incidence, we estimated the effects of LDL-C and HDL-C on the risk of CHD onset, with CHD onset defined using inpatient ICD-10 codes as having developed after the date of baseline exposure assessment a primary or secondary diagnosis of CHD (coded as above), among adults without those diagnosis codes at the time of baseline exposure assessment. Two-stage least squares (predictor substitution) regression models were used for this, where in a first-stage linear model, e.g., LDL-C is regressed on the GRS for LDL-C, plus age, sex, and the first ten genetic principal components (GPCs). The predicted values from that model were then entered into a logistic model as an exposure (plus age, sex, GPCs) with CHD onset as the outcome.

IPW was performed by weighting each regression stage (first stage linear and second stage logistic) for the inverse probability of having had CHD (and survived) before the date of baseline clinic assessment based on predicted values from a separate logistic model of CHD case status regressed on sex, age, highest educational qualification, smoking status, alcohol status, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and relative grip strength (maximum grip divided by weight in kg). Weightings therefore took the form of ‘1 / predicted values’ for those with CHD history.

We estimated the prevalence of statin use based on medication codes for self-reported use of any of 13 drugs (atorvastatin, crestor, eptastatin, fluvastatin, lescol, lipitor, lipostat, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, simvador, simvastatin, zocor, zocor heart-pro) as defined in previous genetic analyses of UKB (53). We used this composite statin variable (yes/no) to estimate the effects of LDL-C and HDL-C on statin use using the same two-stage one-sample MR modelling approach described above with logistic regression as the second stage.

## Supporting information

Supplementary Information [[supplements/274166_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Box 1: 
Terminology commonly used in relation to the bias induced in the case-only setting

*Collider bias: Bias induced in the association between two variables when conditioning on their common effect (a “collider”)*.

*Selection bias:* Bias in the estimated effect of exposure on outcome caused by non-random participation in/selection into a study. Collider bias will induce associations between all causes of participation in/selection into a study.

*Index event bias:* Bias in the estimated effect of exposure on outcome caused by restricting the analysis to cases only. Collider bias will induce associations between all causes of the disease. *Survival bias:* Bias in the estimated effect of exposure on outcome caused by conditioning on those who have survived long enough to be in the study. Collider bias will induce associations between all causes of survival.

## Footnotes

*   **FUNDING:** Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC\_UU\_00011/1, MC\_UU\_00011/3, MC\_UU_00011/4). COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_20059). AC is funded by the Jonathan and Georgina de Pass studentship.

*   Received April 22, 2022.
*   Revision received April 22, 2022.
*   Accepted April 22, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Phipps AI, Passarelli MN, Chan AT, Harrison TA, Jeon J, Hutter CM, et al. Common genetic variation and survival after colorectal cancer diagnosis: a genome-wide analysis. Carcinogenesis. 2016;37(1):87–95.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/carcin/bgv161&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26586795&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

2.  2.Chang IS, Jiang SS, Yang JC-H, Su W-C, Chien L-H, Hsiao C-F, et al. Genetic Modifiers of Progression-Free Survival in Never-Smoking Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients Treated with First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2017;195(5):663–73.
    
    

3.  3.Fogh I, Lin K, Tiloca C, Rooney J, Gellera C, Diekstra FP, et al. Association of a Locus in the CAMTA1 Gene With Survival in Patients With Sporadic Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. JAMA Neurology. 2016;73(7):812–20.
    
    

4.  4.Lee JC, Biasci D, Roberts R, Gearry RB, Mansfield JC, Ahmad T, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies distinct genetic contributions to prognosis and susceptibility in Crohn’s disease. Nat Genet. 2017;49(2):262–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.3755&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

5.  5.Guo Q, Schmidt MK, Kraft P, Canisius S, Chen C, Khan S, et al. Identification of novel genetic markers of breast cancer survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(5).
    
    

6.  6.Ziv E, Dean E, Hu D, Martino A, Serie D, Curtin K, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies variants at 16p13 associated with survival in multiple myeloma patients. Nature Communications. 2015;6(1):7539.
    
    

7.  7.Liu G, Peng J, Liao Z, Locascio JJ, Corvol JC, Zhu F, et al. Genome-wide survival study identifies a novel synaptic locus and polygenic score for cognitive progression in Parkinson’s disease. Nat Genet. 2021;53(6):787–93.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41588-021-00847-6&link_type=DOI) 

8.  8.Munafò MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM, Davey Smith G. Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2018;47(1):226–35.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ije/dyx206&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29040562&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

9.  9.Dahabreh IJ, Kent DM. Index Event Bias as an Explanation for the Paradoxes of Recurrence Risk Research. JAMA. 2011;305(8):822–3.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2011.163&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21343582&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000287594300027&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10.Zafrir B, Jaffe R, Rubinshtein R, Karkabi B, Flugelman MY, Halon DA. Influence of Body Mass Index on Long-Term Survival After Cardiac Catheterization. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121(1):113–9.
    
    

11. 11.Mitchell RE, Paternoster L, Davey Smith G. Mendelian Randomization in Case Only Studies: A Promising Approach to be Applied With Caution. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122(12):2169–71.
    
    

12. 12.Dudbridge F, Allen RJ, Sheehan NA, Schmidt AF, Lee JC, Jenkins RG, et al. Adjustment for index event bias in genome-wide association studies of subsequent events. Nature Communications. 2019;10(1):1561.
    
    

13. 13.Jiang Z, Ding P. The directions of selection bias. Statistics & Probability Letters. 2017;125:104–9.
    
    

14. 14.Bartlett JW, Harel O, Carpenter JR. Asymptotically Unbiased Estimation of Exposure Odds Ratios in Complete Records Logistic Regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182(8):730–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwv114&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26429998&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

15. 15.Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615–25.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15308962&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000223382600020&link_type=ISI) 

16. 16.Yaghootkar H, Bancks MP, Jones SE, McDaid A, Beaumont R, Donnelly L, et al. Quantifying the extent to which index event biases influence large genetic association studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2017;26(5):1018–30.
    
    

17. 17.Hu YJ, Schmidt AF, Dudbridge F, Holmes MV, Brophy JM, Tragante V, et al. Impact of Selection Bias on Estimation of Subsequent Event Risk. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10(5).
    
    

18. 18.Howe LJ, Dudbridge F, Schmidt AF, Finan C, Denaxas S, Asselbergs FW, et al. Polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease and subsequent event risk amongst established cases. Human Molecular Genetics. 2020;29(8):1388–95.
    
    

19. 19.Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(1):1–22.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ije/dyg070&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12689998&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182341300001&link_type=ISI) 

20. 20.Richmond RC,  Davey Smith G. Mendelian Randomization: Concepts and Scope. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2021.
    
    

21. 21.Paternoster L, Tilling K,  Davey Smith G. Genetic epidemiology and Mendelian randomization for informing disease therapeutics: Conceptual and methodological challenges. PLOS Genetics. 2017;13(10):e1006944.
    
    

22. 22.Howe CJ, Cole SR, Lau B, Napravnik S, Eron JJ, Jr.. Selection Bias Due to Loss to Follow Up in Cohort Studies. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):91–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EDE.0000000000000409&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

23. 23.Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzMzgvanVuMjlfMS9iMjM5MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA0LzIyLzIwMjIuMDQuMjIuMjIyNzQxNjYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

24. 24.Pirastu N, Cordioli M, Nandakumar P, Mignogna G, Abdellaoui A, Hollis B, et al. Genetic analyses identify widespread sex-differential participation bias. Nature Genetics. 2021;53(5):663–71.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41588-021-00846-7&link_type=DOI) 

25. 25.Winkler TW, Kutalik Z, Gorski M, Lottaz C, Kronenberg F, Heid IM. EasyStrata: evaluation and visualization of stratified genome-wide association meta-analysis data. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2015;31(2):259–61.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btu621&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25260699&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

26. 26.Smith LH, VanderWeele TJ. Bounding Bias Due to Selection. Epidemiology. 2019;30(4):509–16.
    
    

27. 27.Smith LH, VanderWeele TJ. Simple Sensitivity Analysis for Control Selection Bias. Epidemiology. 2020;31(5):e44–e5.
    
    

28. 28.Smith L, Mathur M, VanderWeele T. Multiple-bias sensitivity analysis using bounds2020.
    
    

29. 29.Noyce AJ, Kia DA, Hemani G, Nicolas A, Price TR, De Pablo-Fernandez E, et al. Estimating the causal influence of body mass index on risk of Parkinson disease: A Mendelian randomisation study. PLoS Med. 2017;14(6):e1002314.
    
    

30. 30.Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
    
    

31. 31.Griffith GJ, Morris TT, Tudball MJ, Herbert A, Mancano G, Pike L, et al. Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5749.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-020-19478-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

32. 32.Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(3):278–95.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0962280210395740&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21220355&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

33. 33.Canan C, Lesko C, Lau B. Instrumental Variable Analyses and Selection Bias. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2017;28(3):396–8.
    
    

34. 34.Gkatzionis A, Burgess S. Contextualizing selection bias in Mendelian randomization: how bad is it likely to be? International journal of epidemiology. 2019;48(3):691–701.
    
    

35. 35.Silverman MG, Ference BA, Im K, Wiviott SD, Giugliano RP, Grundy SM, et al. Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1289–97.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2016.13985&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27673306&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

36. 36.Mahmoud O, Dudbridge F, Davey Smith G, Munafo M, Tilling K. A robust method for collider bias correction in conditional genome-wide association studies. Nature Communications. 2022;13(1):619.
    
    

37. 37.Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, Ray KK, Packard CJ, Bruckert E, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(32):2459–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/eurheartj/ehx144&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28444290&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

38. 38.Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Abt M, Ballantyne CM, Barter PJ, Brumm J, et al. Effects of Dalcetrapib in Patients with a Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;367(22):2089–99.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1206797&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23126252&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000311624400006&link_type=ISI) 

39. 39.Richardson TG, Sanderson E, Palmer TM, Ala-Korpela M, Ference BA, Davey Smith G, et al. Evaluating the relationship between circulating lipoprotein lipids and apolipoproteins with risk of coronary heart disease: A multivariable Mendelian randomisation analysis. PLOS Medicine. 2020;17(3):e1003062.
    
    

40. 40.Michailidou K, Lindström S, Dennis J, Beesley J, Hui S, Kar S, et al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature. 2017;551(7678):92–4.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

41. 41.Smit RAJ, Trompet S, Dekkers OM, Jukema JW, le Cessie S. Survival Bias in Mendelian Randomization Studies: A Threat to Causal Inference. Epidemiology. 2019;30(6):813–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EDE.0000000000001072&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31373921&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

42. 42.Vansteelandt S, Walter S, Tchetgen Tchetgen E. Eliminating Survivor Bias in Two-stage Instrumental Variable Estimators. Epidemiology. 2018;29(4).
    
    

43. 43.Schooling CM, Lopez P, Au Yeung SL, Huang JV. Survival bias and competing risk can severely bias Mendelian Randomization studies of specific conditions. bioRxiv. 2019:716621.
    
    

44. 44.Vansteelandt S, Dukes O, Martinussen T. Survivor bias in Mendelian randomization analysis. Biostatistics. 2018;19(4):426–43.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

45. 45.Zheng J, Tang H, Lyon M, Davies NM, Walker V, Floyd JS, et al. Genetic effect modification of cis-acting C-reactive protein variants in cardiometabolic disease status. bioRxiv. 2021:2021.09.23.461369.
    
    

46. 46.Littlejohns TJ, Sudlow C, Allen NE, Collins R. UK Biobank: opportunities for cardiovascular research. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(14):1158–66.
    
    

47. 47.Haworth S, Mitchell R, Corbin L, Wade KH, Dudding T, Budu-Aggrey A, et al. Apparent latent structure within the UK Biobank sample has implications for epidemiological analysis. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):333.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-018-08219-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30659178&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

48. 48.Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, et al. UK Biobank: An Open Access Resource for Identifying the Causes of a Wide Range of Complex Diseases of Middle and Old Age. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001779.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25826379&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

49. 49.Bycroft C, Freeman C, Petkova D, Band G, Elliott LT, Sharp K, et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature. 2018;562(7726):203–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-018-0579-z&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30305743&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

50. 50.Mitchell R, Hemani G, Dudding T, Corbin L, Harrison S, Paternoster L. UK Biobank Genetic Data: MRC-IEU Quality Control, version 2 2019.
    
    

51. 51.Willer CJ, Schmidt EM, Sengupta S, Peloso GM, Gustafsson S, Kanoni S, et al. Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels. Nat Genet. 2013;45(11):1274–83.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.2797&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24097068&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

52. 52.Kettunen J, Demirkan A, Würtz P, Draisma HH, Haller T, Rawal R, et al. Genome-wide study for circulating metabolites identifies 62 loci and reveals novel systemic effects of LPA. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11122.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ncomms11122&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27005778&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

53. 53.Sinnott-Armstrong N, Tanigawa Y, Amar D, Mars N, Benner C, Aguirre M, et al. Genetics of 35 blood and urine biomarkers in the UK Biobank. Nature Genetics. 2021;53(2):185–94.
    
    

54. 54.Liu M, Jiang Y, Wedow R, Li Y, Brazel DM, Chen F, et al. Association studies of up to 1.2 million individuals yield new insights into the genetic etiology of tobacco and alcohol use. Nat Genet. 2019;51(2):237–44.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41588-018-0307-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 

55. 55.Voight BF, Peloso GM, Orho-Melander M, Frikke-Schmidt R, Barbalic M, Jensen MK, et al. Plasma HDL cholesterol and risk of myocardial infarction: a mendelian randomisation study. Lancet. 2012;380(9841):572–80.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60312-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22607825&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F22%2F2022.04.22.22274166.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000307511400030&link_type=ISI)

 [1]: /embed/graphic-9.gif
 [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif
 [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
 [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
 [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif
 [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif