Abstract
Non-linear Mendelian randomization is an extension of conventional Mendelian randomization that performs separate instrumental variable analyses in strata of the study population with different average levels of the exposure. The approach estimates a localized average causal effect function, representing the average causal effect of the exposure on the outcome at different levels of the exposure. The commonly-used residual method for dividing the population into strata works under the assumption that the effect of the genetic instrument on the exposure is linear and constant in the study population. However, this assumption may not hold in practice. We use the recently developed doubly-ranked method to re-analyse various datasets previously analysed using the residual method. In particular, we consider a genetic score for 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] used in a recent non-linear Mendelian randomization analysis to assess the potential effect of vitamin D supplementation on all-cause mortality. We show that the effect of the genetic score on 25(OH)D concentrations varies strongly, with a five-fold difference in the estimated genetic association with the exposure in the lowest and highest decile groups. Evidence for a protective causal effect of vitamin D supplementation on all-cause mortality in low vitamin D individuals is evident for the residual method, but not for the doubly-ranked method. We show that the constant genetic effect assumption is more reasonable for some exposures, and less reasonable for others. If the doubly-ranked method indicates that this assumption is violated, then estimates from both the residual and doubly-ranked methods can be biased, although bias was smaller on average in the doubly-ranked method. Analysts should compare results from both methods, as well as considering transforming the exposure to reduce heterogeneity in the genetic effect on the exposure.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Stephen Burgess is 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 author 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
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This paper uses openly available human data from UK Biobank available by application to bona fide researchers at https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/.
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
All UK Biobank data are available by application to bona fide researchers at https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/.
