Benchmarking Bayesian colocalization methods in validating Mendelian randomization-based target discoveries from circulating proteins for cardiometabolic diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mendelian randomization (MR) is an important tool for identifying potential biomarkers and drug targets. Colocalization analysis is crucial for validating MR findings and guarding against confounding due to linkage disequilibrium. We aim to benchmark the performance of four Bayesian colocalization methods in validating MR-based target discoveries from circulating proteins for cardiometabolic traits. We assessed the associations between circulating levels of 1,535 proteins and five cardiometabolic traits, followed by colocalization analyses using coloc, coloc+SuSiE, PWCoCo and SharePro. All methods demonstrated well-controlled false discoveries. SharePro demonstrated the highest frequency in supporting 160 (79.6%) of the 201 Bonferroni-significant protein-trait associations identified by MR, compared to coloc (supporting 40.3% of these associations), coloc+SuSiE (46.8%), and PWCoCo (45.8%), and was robust to varying prior colocalization probabilities. Protein-trait associations supported by SharePro were more likely to agree with significant gene-level associations identified in exome-wide association studies and implicate known drug targets. Eight protein-trait associations were exclusively supported by SharePro, suggesting potential cardiometabolic biomarkers or drug targets, such as HSF1 and HAVCR2. In summary, SharePro most often supports statistically significant associations identified through MR for cardiometabolic traits. Combining multiple lines of evidence using different methods may substantially increase the yield of biomarker and drug target discovery programs.
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 | 0.062 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".