Abstract
Mendelian randomisation (MR) is an established technique in epidemiological investigation, using the principle of random allocation of genetic variants at conception to estimate the causal linear effect of an exposure on an outcome. Extensions to this technique include non-linear approaches that allow for differential effects of the exposure on the outcome depending on the level of the exposure. A widely used non-linear method is the residual approach, which estimates the causal effect within different strata of the non-genetically predicted exposure (i.e. the “residual” exposure). These “local” causal estimates are then used to make inferences about non-linear effects. Recent work has identified that this method can lead to estimates that are seriously biased, and a new method - the doubly-ranked method – has been introduced as a possibly more robust approach. In this paper, we perform negative control outcome analyses in the MR context. These are analyses with outcomes onto which the exposure should have no predicted causal effect. Using both methods we find clearly biased estimates in certain situations. We additionally examined a situation for which there are robust randomised controlled trial estimates of effects - that of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction onto myocardial infarction, where randomised trials have provided strong evidence of the shape of the relationship. The doubly-ranked method did not identify the same shape as the trial data, and for LDL-C and other lipids they generated some highly implausible findings. Therefore, we suggest that until there is extensive simulation and empirical methodological work demonstrating that these methods generally produce meaningful findings use of them is suspended. If authors feel it is imperative that they report results from them there should be strong justification for this, and a number of sanity checks (such as analysis of negative and positive control outcomes) should be provided.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
FHs time was funded by the GW4-CAT Wellcome Trust Doctoral Fellowship Scheme (222894/Z/21/Z). UK Biobank was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, the NIHR, and a variety of other charities (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/learn-more-about-uk-biobank/about-us/our-funding).
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 study was performed under the UK Biobank application number 81499. UK Biobank was ethically approved by the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (MREC).
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
Footnotes
Updated for revision; some new analyses conducted.
Data Availability
This analysis was performed in the UK Biobank. Data can be accessed via applicaton to the UK Biobank. We provide code used to perform our analysis in a supplement.
