An analytic framework for exploring sampling and observation process biases in genome and phenome‐wide association studies using electronic health records

Abstract

Large-scale association analyses based on observational health care databases such as electronic health records have been a topic of increasing interest in the scientific community. However, challenges due to nonprobability sampling and phenotype misclassification associated with the use of these data sources are often ignored in standard analyses. The extent of the bias introduced by ignoring these factors is not well-characterized. In this paper, we develop an analytic framework for characterizing the bias expected in disease-gene association studies based on electronic health records when disease status misclassification and the sampling mechanism are ignored. Through a sensitivity analysis approach, this framework can be used to obtain plausible values for parameters of interest given summary results from standard analysis. We develop an online tool for performing this sensitivity analysis. Simulations demonstrate promising properties of the proposed method. We apply our approach to study bias in disease-gene association studies using electronic health record data from the Michigan Genomics Initiative, a longitudinal biorepository effort within The University Michigan health system.

ExPRSweb - An Online Repository with Polygenic Risk Scores for Common Health-related Exposures

“…The often lower pairwise correlations (e.g., r[PRSTC, PRSLDL] = 0.72 and r[PRSeGFR, PRScreatine] = -0.78) were expected because ExPRSs capture only a fraction of the exposure's variance (see diagonal of Figure 3C). The consistent patterns suggested that several ExPRSs can replicate correlations of measured exposures relatively well and thus might be suitable surrogates for exposures, especially for studies where measurements might not be feasible or likely be biased 50,53,54…”

Life history analysis with multistate models: A review and some current issues

“…Observational studies and secondary analysis of RTs are sources of information on potential covariates for predictive models. It is also increasingly common to link high-dimensional genomic data on individuals with administrative databases containing records of clinical events for those individuals (e.g., Beesley, Fritsche & Mukherjee, 2020). As discussed in Section 4.1, it is important to adjust for selection effects in the administrative data and to consider the possibility of unobserved confounders.…”

Addressing selection bias and measurement error in COVID-19 case count data using auxiliary information

“…Note sgn(∆) = sgn(ρ I,Y ) by equation 3 in the appendix, which implies the measurement error adjustment either shrinks the data quality measure toward zero or reverses its sign. While prior investigations have noted the interaction between measurement error and selection bias [Beesley et al, 2020, Beesley and Mukherjee, 2019, van Smeden et al, 2019, the interaction with the sample size relative to the population, i.e., f , has largely been ignored. The above statistical decomposition clarifies the importance of this quantity f .…”