Skip to main content

Table 1 Accuracy of method for correctly testing for the presence of different levels of effect modification over 1,000 iterations. This simulation explored the use of the test to detect differences between a single sex GWAS and a mixed-sex population GWAS for a single instrument. The simulation therefore emulates settings where the outcome GWAS has been measured in a specific sex (e.g. male fertility) but where the explore need not be sex specific (e.g. genetically predicted PDE5 levels) [24]. Accuracy in the 0% change in effect setting represents the percentage of iterations in which the test fails to detect a difference. In all other settings it represents the percentage of iterations in which the test detects a difference. Similar results were found in a simulation with many SNPs (Supplementary Table 1)

From: MRSamePopTest: introducing a simple falsification test for the two-sample mendelian randomisation ‘same population’ assumption

Change in average effect between samples1

Expected variance explained by instrument2

10%

5%

1%

50%

100%

100%

100%

37.5%

100%

100%

100%

25%

100%

100%

100%

12.5%

100%

100%

100%

5%

100%

100%

57%

2.5%

100%

70%

19%

0%

93%

94%

95%

  1. 1 The mixed-sex GWAS had on average 50% of the sample from each sex. Thus a change in effect of 50% between the two samples means one sex has an effect that is a 100% larger the other (i.e. the rows are half the value of ‘EM’ in the supplement)
  2. 2 The expected variance explained by instrument is derived from the ε term in the simulation