Source author record

Stephen Burgess

Stephen Burgess appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Applications Methodology Genomics Quantitative Methods

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

4topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2024arXiv

Illustrating the structures of bias from immortal time using directed acyclic graphs

Background: Immortal time is a period of follow-up during which death or the study outcome cannot occur by design. Bias from immortal time has been increasingly recognized in epidemiologic studies. However, the fundamental causes and structures of bias from immortal time have not been explained systematically using a structural approach. Methods: We use an example "Do Nobel Prize winners live longer than less recognized scientists?" for illustration. We illustrate how immortal time arises and present the structures of bias from immortal time using time-varying directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We further explore the structures of bias with the exclusion of immortal time and with the presence of competing risks. We discuss how these structures are shared by different study designs in pharmacoepidemiology and provide solutions, where possible, to address the bias. Results: We illustrate that immortal time arises from using postbaseline information to define exposure or eligibility. We use time-varying DAGs to explain the structures of bias from immortal time are confounding by survival until exposure allocation or selection bias from selecting on survival until eligibility. We explain that excluding immortal time from the follow-up does not fully address this confounding or selection bias, and that the presence of competing risks can worsen the bias. Bias from immortal time may be avoided by aligning time zero, exposure allocation and eligibility, and by excluding individuals with prior exposure. Conclusions: Understanding bias from immortal time in terms of confounding or selection bias helps researchers identify and thereby avoid or ameliorate this bias.

preprint2022arXiv

Bias in multivariable Mendelian randomization studies due to measurement error on exposures

Multivariable Mendelian randomization estimates the causal effect of multiple exposures on an outcome, typically using summary statistics of genetic variant associations. However, exposures of interest in Mendelian randomization applications will often be measured with error. The summary statistics will therefore not be of the genetic associations with the exposure, but with the exposure measured with error. Classical measurement error will not bias genetic association estimates but will increase their standard errors. With a single exposure, this will result in bias toward the null in a two sample framework. However, this will not necessarily be the case with multiple correlated exposures. In this paper, we examine how the direction and size of bias, as well as coverage, power and type I error rates in multivariable Mendelian randomization studies are affected by measurement error on exposures. We show how measurement error can be accounted for in a maximum likelihood framework. We consider two applied examples. In the first, we show that measurement error leads to the effect of body mass index on coronary heart disease risk to be overestimated, and that of waist-to-hip ratio to be underestimated. In the second, we show that the proportion of the effect of education on coronary heart disease risk which is mediated by body mass index, smoking and blood pressure may be underestimated if measurement error is not taken into account.

preprint2022arXiv

Statistical Methods for cis-Mendelian Randomization with Two-sample Summary-level Data

Mendelian randomization is the use of genetic variants to assess the existence of a causal relationship between a risk factor and an outcome of interest. Here, we focus on two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization analyses with many correlated variants from a single gene region, and particularly on cis-Mendelian randomization studies which use protein expression as a risk factor. Such studies must rely on a small, curated set of variants from the studied region; using all variants in the region requires inverting an ill-conditioned genetic correlation matrix and results in numerically unstable causal effect estimates. We review methods for variable selection and estimation in cis-Mendelian randomization with summary-level data, ranging from stepwise pruning and conditional analysis to principal components analysis, factor analysis and Bayesian variable selection. In a simulation study, we show that the various methods have a comparable performance in analyses with large sample sizes and strong genetic instruments. However, when weak instrument bias is suspected, factor analysis and Bayesian variable selection produce more reliable inferences than simple pruning approaches, which are often used in practice. We conclude by examining two case studies, assessing the effects of LDL-cholesterol and serum testosterone on coronary heart disease risk using variants in the HMGCR and SHBG gene regions respectively.

preprint2015arXiv

Integrating summarized data from multiple genetic variants in Mendelian randomization: bias and coverage properties of inverse-variance weighted methods

Mendelian randomization is the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables to assess whether a risk factor is a cause of a disease outcome. Increasingly, Mendelian randomization investigations are conducted on the basis of summarized data, rather than individual-level data. These summarized data comprise the coefficients and standard errors from univariate regression models of the risk factor on each genetic variant, and of the outcome on each genetic variant. A causal estimate can be derived from these associations for each individual genetic variant, and a combined estimate can be obtained by inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis of these causal estimates. Various proposals have been made for how to calculate this inverse-variance weighted estimate. In this paper, we show that the inverse-variance weighted method as originally proposed (equivalent to a two-stage least squares or allele score analysis using individual-level data) can lead to over-rejection of the null, particularly when there is heterogeneity between the causal estimates from different genetic variants. Random-effects models should be routinely employed to allow for this possible heterogeneity. Additionally, over-rejection of the null is observed when associations with the risk factor and the outcome are obtained in overlapping participants. The use of weights including second-order terms from the delta method is recommended in this case.