Design and quality control of large-scale two-sample Mendelian randomisation studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mendelian randomization studies are susceptible to meta-data errors (e.g. incorrect specification of the effect allele column) and other analytical issues that can introduce substantial bias into analyses. We developed a quality control pipeline for the Fatty Acids in Cancer Mendelian Randomization Collaboration (FAMRC) that can be used to identify and correct for such errors. Methods We invited cancer GWAS to share summary association statistics with the FAMRC and subjected the collated data to a comprehensive QC pipeline. We identified meta data errors through comparison of study-specific statistics to external reference datasets (the NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog and 1000 genome super populations) and other analytical issues through comparison of reported to expected genetic effect sizes. Comparisons were based on three sets of genetic variants: 1) GWAS hits for fatty acids, 2) GWAS hits for cancer and 3) a 1000 genomes reference set. Results We collated summary data from six fatty acid and 49 cancer GWAS. Meta data errors and analytical issues with the potential to introduce substantial bias were identified in seven studies (13%). After resolving analytical issues and excluding unreliable data, we created a dataset of 219,842 genetic associations with 87 cancer types. Conclusion In this large MR collaboration, 13% of included studies were affected by a substantial meta data error or analytical issue. By increasing the integrity of collated summary data prior to their analysis, our protocol can be used to increase the reliability of post-GWAS analyses. Our pipeline is available to other researchers via the CheckSumStats package ( https://github.com/MRCIEU/CheckSumStats ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.416 | 0.627 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".