
AbstractMendelian randomization (MR) analysis uses genotypes as instruments to estimate the causal effect of an exposure in the presence of unobserved confounders. The existing MR methods focus on the data generated from prospective cohort studies. We develop a procedure for studying binary outcomes under a case‐control design. The proposed procedure is built upon two working models commonly used for MR analyses and adopts a quasi‐empirical likelihood framework to address the ascertainment bias from case‐control sampling. We derive various approaches for estimating the causal effect and hypothesis testing under the empirical likelihood framework. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the proposed methods. We find that the proposed empirical likelihood estimate is less biased than the existing estimates. Among all the approaches considered, the Lagrange multiplier (LM) test has the highest power, and the confidence intervals derived from the LM test have the most accurate coverage. We illustrate the use of our method in MR analysis of prostate cancer case‐control data with vitamin D level as exposure and three single nucleotide polymorphisms as instruments.
Male, Likelihood Functions, Biometry, case-control studies, Prostatic Neoplasms, empirical likelihood, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, instrumental variable, Bias, Risk Factors, Case-Control Studies, Mendelian randomization, Confidence Intervals, Humans, Regression Analysis, causal effect, Computer Simulation, Prospective Studies, Vitamin D, Nonparametric hypothesis testing, Lagrange multiplier test
Male, Likelihood Functions, Biometry, case-control studies, Prostatic Neoplasms, empirical likelihood, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, instrumental variable, Bias, Risk Factors, Case-Control Studies, Mendelian randomization, Confidence Intervals, Humans, Regression Analysis, causal effect, Computer Simulation, Prospective Studies, Vitamin D, Nonparametric hypothesis testing, Lagrange multiplier test
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 7 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
