Abstract
Introduction Genetic associations for variants identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) tend to be overestimated in the original discovery dataset; as if the association was underestimated, the variant may not have been detected. This bias, known as winner’s curse, can affect Mendelian randomization estimates, but its severity and potential impact is unclear.
Methods We performed an empirical investigation to assess the potential bias from winner’s curse in practice. We considered Mendelian randomization estimates for the effect of body mass index (BMI) on coronary artery disease risk. We randomly divided a UK Biobank dataset 100 times into three equal-sized subsets. The first subset was treated as the “discovery GWAS”. We compared genetic associations estimated in the discovery GWAS to those estimated in the other subsets for each of the 100 iterations.
Results For variants associated with BMI at p<5×10−8 in at least one iteration, genetic associations with BMI were up to five-fold greater in iterations where the variant was statistically significantly associated with BMI compared to its mean association across all iterations. If the minimum p-value for association with BMI was p=10−13 or lower, then this inflation was less than 25%. Mendelian randomization estimates were affected by winner’s curse bias. However, bias did not materially affect results; all analyses indicated a deleterious effect of BMI on CAD risk.
Conclusions Winner’s curse can bias Mendelian randomization estimates, although its practical impact may not be substantial. If avoiding sample overlap is infeasible, analysts should consider performing a sensitivity analysis based on variants strongly associated with the exposure.
Competing Interest Statement
DG and SB had a wager of a bottle of dessert wine on whether winner's curse would affect the pattern of results and consequent clinical conclusions. Both authors like dessert wine and winning wagers. DG won the wager. DG is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk. ASB reports funding unrelated to this work from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, BioMarin and Sanofi.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the United Kingdom Research and Innovation Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00002/7) and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Data Availability
UK Biobank data is available by application at https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access to any bona fide researcher.
