A semi-empirical Bayes approach for calibrating weak instrumental bias in sex-specific Mendelian randomization studies
Yu‐Jyun HuangiD, Nuzulul KurniansyahiD, Daniel F. LeveyiD, Joel E. GelernteriD, Jennifer E. HuffmaniD, Kelly ChoiD, Peter W.F. WilsoniD, Daniel J. GottliebiD, Kenneth M. RiceiD, Tamar SoferiD
Abstract
Strong sex differences exist in sleep phenotypes and also cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, sex-specific causal effects of sleep phenotypes on CVD-related outcomes have not been thoroughly examined. Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis is a useful approach for estimating the causal effect of a risk factor on an outcome of interest when interventional studies are not available. We first conducted sex-specific genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for suboptimal-sleep phenotypes (insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), short and long sleep durations, and excessive daytime sleepiness) utilizing the Million Veteran Program (MVP) dataset. We then developed a semi-empirical Bayesian framework that (i) calibrates variant-phenotype effect estimates by leveraging information across sex groups, and (ii) applies shrinkage sex-specific effect estimates in MR analysis, to alleviate weak instrumental bias when sex groups are analyzed in isolation. Simulation studies demonstrate that the causal effect estimates derived from our framework are substantially more efficient than those obtained through conventional methods. We estimated the causal effects of sleep phenotypes on CVD-related outcomes using sex-specific GWAS data from the MVP and All of Us. Significant sex differences in causal effects were observed, particularly between OSA and chronic kidney disease, as well as long sleep duration on several CVD-related outcomes. By applying shrinkage estimates for instrumental variable selection, we identified multiple sex-specific significant causal relationships between OSA and CVD-related phenotypes.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.59
- Field percentile
- top 34%
- 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
- A Bayesian approach to Mendelian randomization using summary statistics in the univariable and multivariable settings with correlated pleiotropy
Andrew J. Grant, Stephen Burgess·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024
- MRBEE: A novel bias-corrected multivariable Mendelian Randomization method
Noah J Lorincz‐Comi, Yihe Yang, … Xiaofeng Zhu·bioRxiv·Jan 10, 2023
- Mendelian Randomization Analysis Using Mixture Models (MRMix) for Genetic Effect-Size-Distribution Leads to Robust Estimation of Causal Effects
Guanghao Qi, Nilanjan Chatterjee·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Apr 26, 2019
- CaPri: Bayesian Mendelian randomization for joint estimation of causal and pleiotropic effects
Ou Ren, Wenmin Zhang, Tianyuan Lu·medRxiv·Oct 14, 2026
- Bias correction for inverse variance weighting Mendelian randomization
Ninon Mounier, Zoltán Kutalik·Genetic EpidemiologyPeer-reviewed·Apr 10, 2023
- Reassessing Instrument Strength in Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analysis
Xiaonan Liu, Yu‐Jyun Huang, … Tamar Sofer·medRxiv·Jun 19, 2026