Empirically assessing the plausibility of unconfoundedness in observational studies

The possibility of unmeasured confounding is one of the main limitations for causal inference from observational studies. There are different methods for partially empirically assessing the plausibility of unconfoundedness. However, most currently available methods require (at least partial) assumptions about the confounding structure, which may be difficult to know in practice. In this paper we describe a simple strategy for empirically assessing the plausibility of conditional unconfoundedness (i.e., whether the candidate set of covariates suffices for confounding adjustment) which does not require any assumptions about the confounding structure, requiring instead assumptions related to temporal ordering between covariates, exposure and outcome (which can be guaranteed by design), measurement error and selection into the study. The proposed method essentially relies on testing the association between a subset of covariates (those associated with the exposure given all other covariates) and the outcome conditional on the remaining covariates and the exposure. We describe the assumptions underlying the method, provide proofs, use simulations to corroborate the theory and illustrate the method with an applied example assessing the causal effect of length-for-age measured in childhood and intelligence quotient measured in adulthood using data from the 1982 Pelotas (Brazil) birth cohort. We also discuss the implications of measurement error and some important limitations

Empirically assessing the plausibility of unconfoundedness in observational studies

The possibility of unmeasured confounding is one of the main limitations for causal inference from observational studies. There are different methods for partially empirically assessing the plausibility of unconfoundedness. However, most currently available methods require (at least partial) assumptions about the confounding structure, which may be difficult to know in practice. In this paper we describe a simple strategy for empirically assessing the plausibility of conditional unconfoundedness (i.e., whether the candidate set of covariates suffices for confounding adjustment) which does not require any assumptions about the confounding structure, requiring instead assumptions related to temporal ordering between covariates, exposure and outcome (which can be guaranteed by design), measurement error and selection into the study. The proposed method essentially relies on testing the association between a subset of covariates (those associated with the exposure given all other covariates) and the outcome conditional on the remaining covariates and the exposure. We describe the assumptions underlying the method, provide proofs, use simulations to corroborate the theory and illustrate the method with an applied example assessing the causal effect of length-for-age measured in childhood and intelligence quotient measured in adulthood using data from the 1982 Pelotas (Brazil) birth cohort. We also discuss the implications of measurement error and some important limitations

Interaction-based Mendelian randomization with measured and unmeasured gene-by-covariate interactions

Studies leveraging gene-environment (GxE) interactions within Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses have prompted the emergence of two similar methodologies: MR-GxE and MR-GENIUS. Such methods are attractive in allowing for pleiotropic bias to be corrected when using individual instruments. Specifically, MR-GxE requires an interaction to be explicitly identified, while MR-GENIUS does not. We critically examine the assumptions of MR-GxE and MR-GENIUS in the absence of a pre-defined covariate, and propose sensitivity analyses to evaluate their performance. Finally, we explore the effect of body mass index (BMI) upon systolic blood pressure (SBP) using data from the UK Biobank, finding evidence of a positive effect of BMI on SBP. We find both approaches share similar assumptions, though differences between the approaches lend themselves to differing research settings. Where a suitable gene-by-covariate interaction is observed MR-GxE can produce unbiased causal effect estimates. MR-GENIUS can circumvent the need to identify interactions, but as a consequence relies on either the MR-GxE assumptions holding globally, or additional information with respect to the distribution of pleiotropic effects in the absence of an explicitly defined interaction covariate

Breastfeeding effects on DNA methylation in the offspring::A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND:Breastfeeding benefits both infants and mothers. Recent research shows long-term health and human capital benefits among individuals who were breastfed. Epigenetic mechanisms have been suggested as potential mediators of the effects of early-life exposures on later health outcomes. We reviewed the literature on the potential effects of breastfeeding on DNA methylation. METHODS:Studies reporting original results and evaluating DNA methylation differences according to breastfeeding/breast milk groups (e.g., ever vs. never comparisons, different categories of breastfeeding duration, etc) were eligible. Six databases were searched simultaneously using Ovid, and the resulting studies were evaluated independently by two reviewers. RESULTS:Seven eligible studies were identified. Five were conducted in humans. Studies were heterogeneous regarding sample selection, age, target methylation regions, methylation measurement and breastfeeding categorisation. Collectively, the studies suggest that breastfeeding might be negatively associated with promoter methylation of LEP (which encodes an anorexigenic hormone), CDKN2A (involved in tumour suppression) and Slc2a4 genes (which encodes an insulin-related glucose transporter) and positively with promoter methylation of the Nyp (which encodes an orexigenic neuropeptide) gene, as well as influence global methylation patterns and modulate epigenetic effects of some genetic variants. CONCLUSIONS:The findings from our systematic review are far from conclusive due to the small number of studies and their inherent limitations. Further studies are required to understand the actual potential role of epigenetics in the associations of breastfeeding with later health outcomes. Suggestions for future investigations, focusing on epigenome-wide association studies, are provided

Effect modification of FADS2 polymorphisms on the association between breastfeeding and intelligence:protocol for a collaborative meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials suggests that breastfeeding is positively associated with IQ, possibly because breast milk is a source of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids. Different studies have detected gene-breastfeeding interactions involving FADS2 variants and intelligence. However, findings are inconsistent regarding the direction of such effect modification. METHODS/DESIGN: To clarify how FADS2 and breastfeeding interact in their association with IQ, we are conducting a consortium-based meta-analysis of independent studies. Results produced by each individual study using standardised analysis scripts and harmonised data will be used. Inclusion criteria: breastfeeding, IQ and either rs174575 or rs1535 polymorphisms available; and being of European ancestry. Exclusion criteria: twin studies; only poorly imputed genetic data available; or unavailability of proper ethics approval. Studies will be invited based on being known to have at least some of the required data, or suggested by participating studies as potentially eligible. This inclusive approach will favour achieving a larger sample size and be less prone to publication bias. DISCUSSION: Improving current understanding of FADS2-breastfeeding interaction may provide important biological insights regarding the importance of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids for the breastfeeding-IQ association. This meta-analysis will help to improve such knowledge by replicating earlier studies, conducting additional analysis and evaluating different sources of heterogeneity. Publishing this protocol will minimise the possibility of bias due to post hoc changes to the analysis protocol