Observational epidemiological studies can mitigate genetic confounding with the genetic relatedness matrix
Roshni A. PateliD, Joshua G. SchraiberiD, Matthew W. PennelliD, Michael D. EdgeiD
Abstract
Observational studies are commonly used in psychology and epidemiology to identify risk factors correlated with health outcomes. However, these studies are vulnerable to confounding when shared genetic variation influences both the putative risk factor and outcome. Researchers have historically controlled for this type of genetic confounding using polygenic scores, but these scores are often noisy and biased estimators of a traits genetic component. Here, we develop a method that leverages a genetic relatedness matrix (GRM) to control genetic confounding when testing for non-genetic risk factors. In simulations, we find that our method outperforms existing approaches, particularly at sample sizes that are large by the standards of much human research but smaller than datasets often used in human genetics. We also demonstrate that existing methods are susceptible to poor GWAS portability, whereas our method is inherently robust to such concerns. Finally, we apply our method to the UK Biobank to re-analyze social risk factors for health outcomes in previously understudied cohorts. Significance statementLarge observational datasets are often used in epidemiology or social sciences to identify risk factors associated with health outcomes. However, these studies can be misleading when the putative risk factor and outcome are both complex genetic traits: a correlated genetic basis can create spurious associations between a putative risk factor and outcome. Existing approaches to address this problem typically rely on GWAS summary statistics, which require biobank-scale datasets. In this work, we introduce an alternative method that uses a genetic relatedness matrix (GRM) to control for genetic confounding directly. We show that our approach is closely related to existing methods but outperforms them in smaller datasets, making it an especially valuable tool for researchers who work on understudied traits and populations.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.00
- Field percentile
- top 14%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Genetic sensitivity analysis: adjusting for genetic confounding in epidemiological associations
Jean‐Baptiste Pingault, Frühling Vesta Rijsdijk, … Frank Dudbridge·PLoS GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 11, 2021
- Controlling for polygenic genetic confounding in epidemiologic association studies
Zijie Zhao, Xiaoyu Yang, … Qiongshi Lu·Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesPeer-reviewed·Oct 21, 2024
- Using summary data to detect and quantify ascertainment in biobanks
Babatunde Shittu Olasege, Adrián I. Campos, … Loïc Yengo·bioRxiv·Aug 7, 2026
- Correction for participation bias in the UK Biobank reveals non-negligible impact on genetic associations and downstream analyses
Tabea Schoeler, Doug Speed, … Zoltán Kutalik·Nature Human BehaviourPeer-reviewed·Apr 27, 2023
- Factors associated with sharing email information and mental health survey participation in two large population cohorts
Mark J. Adams, William David Hill, … Andrew Mark McIntosh·International Journal of EpidemiologyPeer-reviewed·Jun 17, 2019
- Common genetic variants and health outcomes appear geographically structured in the UK Biobank sample: Old concerns returning and their implications.
Simon J. Haworth, Ruth E. Mitchell, … Nicholas John Timpson·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Jan 18, 2019