Improving the visualization, interpretation and analysis of two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization via the Radial plot and Radial regression

Abstract Background Summary data furnishing a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study are often visualized with the aid of a scatter plot, in which single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)–outcome associations are plotted against the SNP–exposure associations to provide an immediate picture of the causal-effect estimate for each individual variant. It is also convenient to overlay the standard inverse-variance weighted (IVW) estimate of causal effect as a fitted slope, to see whether an individual SNP provides evidence that supports, or conflicts with, the overall consensus. Unfortunately, the traditional scatter plot is not the most appropriate means to achieve this aim whenever SNP–outcome associations are estimated with varying degrees of precision and this is reflected in the analysis. Methods We propose instead to use a small modification of the scatter plot—the Galbraith Radial plot—for the presentation of data and results from an MR study, which enjoys many advantages over the original method. On a practical level, it removes the need to recode the genetic data and enables a more straightforward detection of outliers and influential data points. Its use extends beyond the purely aesthetic, however, to suggest a more general modelling framework to operate within when conducting an MR study, including a new form of MR-Egger regression. Results We illustrate the methods using data from a two-sample MR study to probe the causal effect of systolic blood pressure on coronary heart disease risk, allowing for the possible effects of pleiotropy. The Radial plot is shown to aid the detection of a single outlying variant that is responsible for large differences between IVW and MR-Egger regression estimates. Several additional plots are also proposed for informative data visualization. Conclusions The Radial plot should be considered in place of the scatter plot for visualizing, analysing and interpreting data from a two-sample summary data MR study. Software is provided to help facilitate its use.

[1]  D. Lawlor,et al.  Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption , 2018, bioRxiv.

[2]  Jack Bowden,et al.  Mendelian randomization incorporating uncertainty about pleiotropy , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Tom R. Gaunt,et al.  Automating Mendelian randomization through machine learning to construct a putative causal map of the human phenome , 2017, bioRxiv.

[4]  N. Sheehan,et al.  A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two‐sample summary data Mendelian randomization , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Debbie A Lawlor,et al.  Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[6]  Jack Bowden,et al.  Weighing Evidence “Steampunk” Style via the Meta-Analyser , 2016, The American statistician.

[7]  N. Timpson,et al.  BMI as a Modifiable Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes: Refining and Understanding Causal Estimates Using Mendelian Randomization , 2016, Diabetes.

[8]  Nuala A Sheehan,et al.  Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  G. Davey Smith,et al.  Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies , 2014, Human molecular genetics.

[11]  A. Butterworth,et al.  Mendelian Randomization Analysis With Multiple Genetic Variants Using Summarized Data , 2013, Genetic epidemiology.

[12]  J. Danesh,et al.  Large-scale association analysis identifies new risk loci for coronary artery disease , 2012, Nature Genetics.

[13]  Tom R. Gaunt,et al.  Genetic Variants in Novel Pathways Influence Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease Risk , 2011, Nature.

[14]  Frank W. Stearns One Hundred Years of Pleiotropy: A Retrospective , 2010, Genetics.

[15]  John B. Copas,et al.  The radial plot in meta‐analysis: approximations and applications , 2009 .

[16]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. , 2008, International journal of epidemiology.

[17]  Nikolaos A Patsopoulos,et al.  Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. , 2008, International journal of epidemiology.

[18]  J. Copas,et al.  A robust P‐value for treatment effect in meta‐analysis with publication bias , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Roger M Harbord,et al.  A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  S. Ebrahim,et al.  'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? , 2003, International journal of epidemiology.

[21]  S. Sharp,et al.  Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  Rex Galbraith,et al.  Graphical display of estimates having differing standard errors , 1988 .

[23]  R F Galbraith,et al.  A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. , 1988, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[25]  G. Rücker,et al.  Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis. , 2011, Biostatistics.