Profile‐likelihood Bayesian model averaging for two‐sample summary data Mendelian randomization in the presence of horizontal pleiotropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization is a popular method for assessing causality in epidemiology, by using genetic variants as instrumental variables. If genes exert pleiotropic effects on the outcome not entirely through the exposure of interest, this can lead to heterogeneous and (potentially) biased estimates of causal effect. We investigate the use of Bayesian model averaging to preferentially search the space of models with the highest posterior likelihood. We develop a Metropolis-Hasting algorithm to perform the search using the recently developed MR-RAPS as the basis for defining a posterior distribution that efficiently accounts for pleiotropic and weak instrument bias. We demonstrate how our general modeling approach can be extended from a standard one-component causal model to a two-component model, which allows a large proportion of SNPs to violate the InSIDE assumption. We use Monte Carlo simulations to illustrate our methods and compare it to several related approaches. We finish by applying our approach to investigate the causal role of cholesterol on the development age-related macular degeneration.
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 | 0.029 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".