Confidence Intervals for Causal Effects with Invalid Instruments by Using Two-Stage Hard Thresholding with Voting

Abstract

Summary A major challenge in instrumental variable (IV) analysis is to find instruments that are valid, or have no direct effect on the outcome and are ignorable. Typically one is unsure whether all of the putative IVs are in fact valid. We propose a general inference procedure in the presence of invalid IVs, called two‐stage hard thresholding with voting. The procedure uses two hard thresholding steps to select strong instruments and to generate candidate sets of valid IVs. Voting takes the candidate sets and uses majority and plurality rules to determine the true set of valid IVs. In low dimensions with invalid instruments, our proposal correctly selects valid IVs, consistently estimates the causal effect, produces valid confidence intervals for the causal effect and has oracle optimal width, even if the so‐called 50% rule or the majority rule is violated. In high dimensions, we establish nearly identical results without oracle optimality. In simulations, our proposal outperforms traditional and recent methods in the invalid IV literature. We also apply our method to reanalyse the causal effect of education on earnings.

A Comparison Of Robust Mendelian Randomization Methods Using Summary Data

“…A related assumption is the 'plurality valid' assumption [11]. In large samples, while ratio estimates for all valid IVs should equal the true causal effect, ratio estimates for invalid IVs will take different values.…”

“…First, the method requires only summary data on estimates (beta-coefficients and standard errors) of genetic variant-exposure and genetic variantoutcome associations. We exclude methods that require individual participant data [10][11][12][13], and those that require data on additional variants not associated with the risk factor [14,15]. This is because the sharing of individual participant data is often impractical, so that many empirical researchers only have access to summary data, and for fairness, to ensure that all methods are using the same information to make inferences.…”

Modal-based estimation via heterogeneity-penalized weighting: model averaging for consistent and efficient estimation in Mendelian randomization when a plurality of candidate instruments are valid

“…considered simple and weighted median methods that again are consistent if at least 50% of the candidate instrumental variables are valid; the simple median method is a median of the variant-specific ratio estimates. Most recently, Guo et al 9 . introduced a method that provides a consistent estimate if a plurality of the candidate instruments are valid, meaning that the largest subset of genetic variants with the same ratio estimate (in a large sample size) comprises the valid instruments.…”

Association of Obesity with Health Care Costs: A Mendelian Randomization study

“…In the 2SLS estimator, we assume normal distribution of cost data which is not present because of skewness, positivity, and heavy tails. This can also affect the validity of the standard errors and confidence intervals (Guo et al, 2018;Kang et al, 2018). Still, the use of a linear model is justified because the skewness and tail distribution are not extreme and the large sample size guarantees near-normality of sample means because of the Central Limit Theorem (Mihaylova et al, 2011).…”