REVIEW
Weak instruments in multivariable Mendelian randomization: methods and practice
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The method of multivariable Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants to instrument multiple exposures, to estimate the effect that a given exposure has on an outcome conditional on all other exposures included in a linear model. Unfortunately, the inclusion of every additional exposure makes a weak instruments problem more likely, because we require conditionally strong genetic predictors of each exposure. This issue is well appreciated in practice, with different versions of F-statistics routinely reported as measures of instument strength. Less transparently, however, these F-statistics are sometimes used to guide instrument selection, and even to decide whether to report empirical results. Rather than discarding findings with low F-statistics, weak instrument-robust methods can provide valid inference under weak instruments. For multivariable Mendelian randomization with two-sample summary data, we encourage use of the inference strategy of Andrews (2018) that reports both robust and non-robust confidence sets, along with a statistic that measures how reliable the non-robust confidence set is in terms of coverage. We also propose a novel adjusted-Kleibergen statistic that corrects for overdispersion heterogeneity in genetic associations with the outcome.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.