Key result
Bayesian imputation methods boost Mendelian randomization precision equivalent to a ~25% larger sample size.
Observational
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mendelian randomization studies typically have low power. Where there are several valid candidate genetic instruments, precision can be gained by using all the instruments available. However, sporadically missing genetic data can offset this gain. The authors describe 4 Bayesian methods for imputing the missing data based on a missing-at-random assumption: multiple imputations, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) imputation, latent variables, and haplotype imputation. These methods are demonstrated in a simulation study and then applied to estimate the causal relation between C-reactive protein and each of fibrinogen and coronary heart disease, based on 3 SNPs in British Women's Heart and Health Study participants assessed at baseline between May 1999 and June 2000. A complete-case analysis based on all 3 SNPs was found to be more precise than analyses using any 1 SNP alone. Precision is further improved by using any of the 4 proposed missing data methods; the improvement is equivalent to about a 25% increase in sample size. All methods gave similar results, which were apparently not overly sensitive to violation of the missing-at-random assumption. Programming code for the analyses presented is available online.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burgess et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Coronary heart disease. Bayesian missing data imputation methods (multiple imputations, SNP imputation, latent variables, and haplotype imputation) for C-reactive protein genetic instruments vs. Complete-case analysis and single-SNP analysis was evaluated on Precision of causal relation estimates between C-reactive protein and fibrinogen or coronary heart disease. Four Bayesian missing-data imputation methods in multi-SNP Mendelian randomization improved estimation precision equivalent to a ~25% sample size increase compared with complete-case analysis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: