Reassessing Instrument Strength in Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analysis

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis is widely used to estimate causal relationships between risk factors and outcomes of interest. Two-sample MR approaches have gained increasing attention in genetic epidemiology due to the growing availability of Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) summary statistics from public databases. A critical step in two-sample MR is the selection of genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs). Although genome-wide significant variants are typically preferred, the inclusion of variants with weaker association p-values is considered, as they may potentially improve power through an increased instrument number of instruments, while they may introduce weak instrument bias and attenuate effect estimates towards the null. Our simulation results show that even modest levels of pleiotropy substantially increase the variability of causal effect estimates, while the inclusion of weak IVs does not substantially affect the direction and variability of causal effect estimates in most cases. In real data analyses, we used two released versions of FinnGen GWAS summary statistics with different sample sizes as exposure GWASs to assess the influence of weak IVs. Here, the inclusion of IVs with higher exposure-association p-values resulted in weakened estimated effect sizes, particularly when the exposure GWAS sample size was small. These findings suggest that incorporating weak IVs is reasonable when the exposure GWAS sample size is large, but it poses a risk of falsely concluding null associations when the exposure GWAS sample size is small.