Abstract
Mendelian Randomization (MR), which utilizes genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs), has gained popularity as a method for causal inference between phenotypes using genetic data. While efforts have been made to relax IV assumptions and develop new methods for causal inference in the presence of invalid IVs due to confounding, the reliability of MR methods in real-world applications remains uncertain. To bridge this gap, we conducted a benchmark study evaluating 15 MR methods using real-world genetic datasets. Our study focused on three crucial aspects: type I error control in the presence of various confounding scenarios (e.g., population stratification, pleiotropy, and assortative mating), the accuracy of causal effect estimates, replicability and power. By comprehensively evaluating the performance of compared methods over one thousand pairs of exposure-outcome traits, our study not only provides valuable insights into the performance and limitations of the compared methods but also offers practical guidance for researchers to choose appropriate MR methods for causal inference.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Hong Kong Research Grant Council grants nos. 16301419, 16308120, 16307221, and 16307322, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Startup Grants R9405 and Z0428 from the Big Data Institute, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Joint Laboratory grant no. 2020B1212030001 and the RGC Collaborative Research Fund grant no. C6021-19EF to C.Y., City University of Hong Kong Startup Grant 7200746 and Strategic Research Grant 21300423 to M.C.
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:
The UK Biobank data are from UK Biobank resources under application number 30186. All GWAS summary statistics used in this study are publicly available and can be downloaded at https://github.com/YangLabHKUST/MRbenchmarking. Supplementary Data 1-3, and 5 provide the references of these datasets.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability
The UK Biobank data are from UK Biobank resources under application number 30186. All GWAS summary statistics used in this study are downloadable at https://github.com/YangLabHKUST/MRbenchmarking. Supplementary Data 1-3, and 5 provide the references of these datasets.
