You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Central corneal thickness and the risk of primary open-angle glaucoma: a Mendelian randomisation mediation analysis

Article Text

Article menu
Glaucoma
Central corneal thickness and the risk of primary open-angle glaucoma: a Mendelian randomisation mediation analysis
  1. Andreas Katsimpris1,
  2. Sebastian-Edgar Baumeister2,
  3. Hansjörg Baurecht3,
  4. Andrew J Tatham1,
  5. Michael Nolde2
  1. 1Department of Ophthalmology, Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2Institute of Health Services Research in Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
  3. 3Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Michael Nolde; nolde{at}uni-muenster.de

Abstract

Background The association of central corneal thickness (CCT) with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) remains uncertain. Although several observational studies assessing this relationship have reported an inverse association between CCT and POAG, this could be the result of collider bias. In this study, we leveraged human genetic data to assess through Mendelian randomisation (MR) the effect of CCT on POAG risk and whether this effect is mediated by intraocular pressure (IOP) changes.

Methods We used 24 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with CCT (p value<5×10−8) from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) (N=17 803) provided by the International Glaucoma Genetics Consortium and 53 SNPs associated with IOP (p value<5×10−8) from a GWAS of the UK Biobank (UKBB) (N=97 653). We related these instruments to POAG using a GWAS meta-analysis of 8283 POAG cases and 753 827 controls from UKBB and FinnGen.

Results MR analysis suggested a positive association between CCT and POAG (OR of POAG per 50 µm increase in CCT: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.61; p value<0.01). MR mediation analysis showed that 28.4% of the total effect of CCT on POAG risk was mediated through changes in IOP. The primary results were consistent with estimates of pleiotropy-robust MR methods.

Conclusion Contrary to most observational studies, our results showed that a higher CCT is associated with an increased risk of POAG.

  • Glaucoma
  • Cornea
  • Genetics

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-324996

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Previous observational studies have suggested thin central corneal thickness as a potential risk factor for primary open-angle glaucoma.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • Our study suggests that the association between corneal thickness and primary open-angle glaucoma may follow an opposite direction compared with what has been observed in most observational studies.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • Future studies assessing the effect of central corneal thickness on primary open-angle glaucoma should avoid adjusting for intraocular pressure in their analyses or selecting their participants based on measured intraocular pressure, since this can introduce collider bias, which may create a spurious association between corneal thickness and the risk of primary open-angle glaucoma.

    Introduction

    Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) ranks as the primary cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, with projections indicating a significant and growing impact in the future.1 Identification of recognised risk factors for POAG, such as elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), family history of POAG and non-white ethnicity in individuals, can lead to early detection of POAG through screening initiatives and mitigate vision impairment.2

    The role of central corneal thickness (CCT) as a potential risk factor for POAG remains uncertain, with ongoing debate regarding its clinical significance in the diagnosis and management of the condition.3 Lower CCT has been postulated to be spuriously associated with a higher risk of POAG since CCT can artificially influence IOP measurements.4 Moreover, the inverse association between CCT and POAG has been reported mainly by observational studies, which either adjusted for IOP in their analyses, thereby treating IOP like a confounder,5 6 or selected their participants based on measured IOP.7 This can result in a spurious inverse association of CCT with POAG, as a result of collider bias.8 Collider bias in a study can occur after controlling for a variable that is a common effect of the exposure and the outcome. The variable that is caused by both the exposure and the outcome is termed a ‘collider’, and controlling for this variable either by study design or by statistical analysis can create spurious associations between the exposure and the outcome of interest. In studies assessing the association between CCT and POAG, collider bias can occur when measured IOP is controlled, either in study design or in statistical analysis, since measured IOP is causally affected by both true IOP and CCT (figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Directed acyclic graph showing the existence of collider bias when assessing the association of central corneal thickness (CCT) with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Measured IOP is a collider since both CCT and true IOP are causally associated with it (black arrows). In cases of adjustment for measured IOP in the analysis or stratification of the analysis based on measured IOP or selection of the study participants based on measured IOP, a spurious relationship (dashed red line) will occur between CCT and POAG via true IOP, even if no true causal association between CCT and POAG exists (there is no arrow connecting CCT with POAG).

    One method to assess the existence of a causal relationship between CCT and POAG is Mendelian randomisation (MR), a type of instrumental variable analysis, where genetic variants from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are used as instruments.9 It is noteworthy that a recent MR study found a marginally non-significant positive association between CCT and POAG.10 This suggests that the causal relationship between CCT and POAG may follow an opposite direction compared with what has been observed in most observational studies. Considering that the lack of statistical significance of the association estimate from the recent MR study may have been due to the relatively small sample size of the GWAS used, we employed MR in our current study, using larger GWAS datasets of POAG to assess the existence of a causal association between CCT and POAG. Moreover, we conducted a two-step MR for mediation analysis11 to further investigate the proportion of the effect of CCT on POAG mediated through IOP changes.

    Materials and methods

    Study design

    MR employs genetic variants, typically single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), as instrumental variables to assess the effect of modifiable risk factors on disease risk.9 These genetic variants are randomly allocated at conception, akin to a natural randomised controlled trial, reducing susceptibility to confounding and reverse causation biases.11 In our study, we conducted a two-sample MR using summary statistics from GWAS for CCT12 and POAG13 14 in order to assess the effect of CCT on POAG risk. Additionally, we performed mediation analysis with two-step MR11 to further explore the proportion of the effect of CCT on POAG mediated through IOP changes. We followed the STROBE-MR guidelines15 and ‘Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations’16 and we have not pre-registered the study protocol.

    Data sources

    We retrieved summary data from the largest GWAS to date for CCT10 comprising 17 803 individuals of European descent, from the International Glaucoma Genetics Consortium IGGC (online supplemental table 1). CCT in individual cohorts was assessed with ultrasound pachymetry or corneal topography and measured in micrometre. Genotyping and imputation methods of the GWAS have been described elsewhere.10 Summary statistics for POAG were retrieved from two GWAS: (1) the FinnGen consortium database (R8 release), which included 6,785 POAG cases and 349 292 controls,13 (2) the UK Biobank (UKBB) cohort, which included 1498 POAG cases and 404 535 controls.14 Both GWAS participants were of European descent, and POAG cases met the criteria for a diagnosis of POAG based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code. Summary statistics for corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) were also retrieved from the UKBB cohort.14 More specifically, a sub-sample of 97 653 participants from the UKBB underwent ophthalmic assessment including IOPcc assessment in millimetres of mercury (mm Hg) using an Ocular Response Analyzer non-contact tonometer. Our chosen IOP phenotype was IOPcc since it was designed to account for corneal biomechanical properties and has also been used in prior GWAS for IOP.17 Genotyping, quality control and imputation methods of the GWAS have been described elsewhere.13 18

    Supplemental material

    Selection of genetic variants as instrumental variables

    We chose SNPs from the CCT GWAS that reached genome-wide significance (p value<5×10−8) after clumping for linkage disequilibrium at r2<0.001 over a 10 mb window. Using the MR-Steiger directionality test, we determined the causality direction between CCT and POAG.19 SNPs more strongly correlated with the outcome than the exposure were excluded, along with those showing significant influence in the funnel plots and scatter plots. Ultimately, 24 SNPs associated with CCT were selected as instrumental variables. Moreover, by summing the coefficients of determination (R2) obtained from the associations between the selected SNPs and CCT, we calculated the percentage of variability in CCT that can be accounted for by the selected 24 SNPs. In a similar way, we selected 53 genetic variants from the IOP GWAS for our MR mediation analysis.

    Statistical analysis

    The SNP-POAG association estimates of the selected SNPs were extracted from a meta-analysis of the FinnGen and UKBB GWAS that we performed using the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) fixed effect approach. Following data harmonisation, which involved filtering SNPs based on HapMap3,20 excluding strand-ambiguous ones and aligning effect sizes, we computed Wald ratios. These ratios were obtained by dividing the per-allele logarithm of odds ratio (logOR) for each SNP from the meta-analysed POAG GWAS by its corresponding logOR from the GWAS for CCT. The cumulative effect of CCT on POAG risk was then estimated through a multiplicative random effects IVW meta-analysis of the Wald ratios.21

    We conducted a univariable two-sample MR using summary-level statistics from GWAS available for CCT and POAG. The two-sample MR approach relies on three fundamental assumptions: (1) the genetic instruments should be reliably associated with the risk factor under investigation (‘relevance’ assumption), (2) the genetic instruments should not be associated with factors that might confound the association between the exposure and outcome (‘exchangeability’ assumption) and (3) the genetic instruments are not associated with the outcome other than via the risk factor of interest (‘exclusion restriction’ assumption).22 23 To fulfil the ‘relevance’ assumption, we ensured that the selected SNPs as instrumental variables reached genome-wide significance (p value<5×10−8). Additionally, we assessed instrument strength by calculating the F-statistic of the selected genetic instruments as well as the proportion of exposure variance they explain.24 While the ‘exchangeability’ and ‘exclusion restriction’ assumptions cannot be definitively proven, we conducted sensitivity analyses to detect potential violation of the assumptions underlying MR. Possible violations may arise from horizontal pleiotropy, where genetic variants impact outcomes through pathways unrelated to the investigated exposure. Thus, we employed PhenoScanner25 to assess associations between our selected genetic instruments and traits that could potentially confound our analysis. If pleiotropic pathways were detected, we used multivariable MR to account for these effects.26 Furthermore, we examined each selected SNP and its proxies for associations with known POAG risk factors, assessed heterogeneity among the chosen genetic variants through the Cochran Q heterogeneity test and IGX223 to detect pleiotropy- and conducted MR Egger regression23 and pleiotropy-robust methods27 (penalised weighted median, IVW radial regression and MR-Pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO)) to assess directional pleiotropy. To determine if the IVW estimate was influenced by a single SNP, we conducted a leave-one-out analysis.

    For assessing the effect of CCT on POAG that is mediated through IOP (indirect effect), we conducted a two-step MR for mediation analysis.11 In this method, two MR estimates are calculated: (1) the causal effect of CCT on the IOP using a univariable MR model and (2) the causal effect of the IOP on POAG using a multivariable MR model adjusted for CCT. These two estimates are then multiplied together to estimate the indirect effect of CCT on POAG that is mediated through IOP. The total effect of CCT on POAG was also calculated, and in all these mediation MR analyses, we used only the POAG GWAS from the FinnGen cohort, in order to avoid overlap with the UKBB GWAS for IOP. Additionally, we calculated the proportion of the total effect of CCT on POAG explained by the mediator (IOP), by dividing the indirect effect of CCT on POAG by the total effect. The delta method was used to estimate 95% CIs for the indirect effect and the proportion mediated.28 MR for mediation requires SNPs that have been selected as instruments for the exposure and mediator to be independent,11 so we ensured our selected SNPs from the CCT and IOP GWAS to be non-overlapping.

    All MR estimates for the associations of CCT with IOP and POAG were multiplied by 50, representing the change in log odds of POAG or units of IOP per 50 µm increase in CCT. All analyses were performed with R V.4.2.129 using the MendelianRandomization, TwoSampleMR, MVMR and MR-PRESSO packages.

    Results

    Effect of CCT on POAG

    The selected 24 SNPs from the CCT GWAS (online supplemental figure 1) explained 7.55% of the variance in CCT, and the F-statistics for all SNPs were ≥30.87 (online supplemental table S2). We found a positive effect of the genetically predicted CCT on POAG risk using the IVW method (OR: 1.38 per 50 µm increase in CCT; 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.61; p value<0.01) (figure 2 and online supplemental figure 2). The estimates from the pleiotropy-robust methods were consistent with the estimates from the IVW analysis (figure 2). None of our instrumental SNPs were associated with POAG risk factors (online supplemental table S3), and thus, we did not perform multivariable MR to adjust for correlated horizontal pleiotropy.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Mendelian randomisation estimates for the effect of central corneal thickness on primary open-angle glaucoma. Estimates are reported as changes in odds of primary open-angle glaucoma per 50 µm increase in central corneal thickness. MR-PRESSO, Mendelian randomisation pleiotropy residual sum and outlier; SNP, single-nucleotide polymorphism.

    We found evidence of heterogeneity among Wald ratios for CCT with POAG (online supplemental table S4), with a Cochran’s Q heterogeneity test value of 40.62 (p value=0.013). However, the intercepts from the MR-Egger analyses did not deviate from zero; thus, no directional pleiotropy was present (online supplemental table S4). The leave-one-SNP-out analyses identified no SNPs with high influence on the IVW estimates for our exposures (online supplemental table S5).

    Mediation analysis

    An illustration of the MR mediation analysis can be seen in figure 3. Because here we used only one GWAS for POAG, the estimate of the total effect of CCT on POAG was slightly different (OR: 1.50 per 50 µm increase in CCT; 95% CI: 1.27 to 1.77; p value<0.01, figure 2B and online supplemental table S6). 28.4% (95% CI: 0 to 60%) of the total effect of CCT on POAG was mediated through changes in IOP.

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Directed acyclic graphs of the mediation analysis with Mendelian randomisation. The indirect effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) on primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) can be calculated by multiplying α times β, where α is the effect of CCT on intraocular pressure (IOP), and β is the effect of IOP on POAG. The proportion mediated can be estimated by dividing the indirect effect by the total effect of CCT on POAG. Estimates of the CCT effect on IOP and POAG are shown per 50 µm increase in CCT. logOR, logarithm of OR.

    Discussion

    In this two-sample MR, we used genetic data to assess the association between CCT and the risk of POAG. Moreover, we conducted MR mediation analysis to assess the proportion of the CCT effect on POAG that is mediated through IOP changes. Contrary to most of the observational studies in the literature, we found evidence of a positive causal association between CCT and POAG.

    The first landmark glaucoma study to suggest that thinner corneas are associated with the development of POAG was the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study7 (OHTS). In this prospective study, they found an unadjusted and adjusted HR for POAG of 1.88 (95% CI: 1.55 to 2.29) and 1.71 (95% CI: 1.40 to 2.09), respectively, per 40 µm decrease in CCT. However, all the OHTS study participants were individuals with ocular hypertension (IOP>21 mm Hg), and since higher CCT can result in higher IOP measurement readings,30 this led to the selection of a cohort with high CCT values (93% of the total participants had CCT higher than 526 mm). As a result, individuals in the OHTS with high CCT might actually have a lower true IOP, which may have caused this false inverse association between CCT and POAG conversion in the OHTS due to selection bias.

    Additionally, two other landmark glaucoma studies, the Los Angles Latino Eye Study (LALES)5 and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT),6 have found an inverse association between CCT and POAG, but only in their confounder-adjusted analyses. In the univariate analysis of baseline factors predicting the development of POAG in the LALES, the OR for POAG per 40 µm decrease in CCT was 1.16 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.50, p value=0.25), while in the multivariable analysis, adjusted for IOP, this association estimate became marginally statistically significant with an OR for POAG of 1.30 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.70, p value=0.05). Similarly, in the EMGT, the univariable analysis showed no association between CCT and POAG per 40 µm decrease in CCT (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.68, p value=0.188). However, in an analysis stratified on baseline IOP, a statistically significant 42% increase in POAG risk was found per 40 µm decrease in CCT (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.92, p value=0.02), only in patients with higher baseline IOP.

    The fact that in these three landmark glaucoma studies a significant inverse association occurred only after either adjusting for IOP in their analyses or stratifying their analysis based on IOP or selecting their participants based on IOP suggests the presence of collider bias31 (figure 1). Selection bias can be considered a form of collider bias, where control of the collider happens during the sampling of the study participants.32 This could be the case for the presence of an inverse association between CCT and POAG in the OHTS, since participants were selected based on measured IOP (collider), and both true IOP (outcome) and CCT (exposure) are causally associated with it. In LALES5 and EMGT,6 the significant association between CCT and POAG seems to occur due to collider bias after adjusting for measured IOP in their statistical analyses. The presence of collider bias on the CCT-POAG association has also been extensively investigated by Khawaja and Jansonius,8 where, in their simulated studies, CCT was significantly associated with POAG only when adjusted for measured IOP or when participants were selected based on measured IOP.

    In contrast to the observational studies mentioned above, a recent two-sample MR study10 found that genetic predisposition to higher CCT is associated with a higher risk of POAG, similar to our results, but this association was marginally not significant (OR for POAG: 1.20 per 50 µm increase in CCT, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.47, p value=0.09). The POAG GWAS that they used included 63 412 participants (4986 POAG cases and 58 426 controls). We were able to detect a statistically significant association between CCT and POAG because the combined GWAS data for POAG were much larger and consisted of 762 210 participants (8283 POAG cases and 753 827 controls). Despite the significant heterogeneity among the Wald ratios for our selected SNPs, no directional pleiotropy that could lead to biased estimates was evident.23

    The key strength of this study was the large sample size of the combined GWAS for POAG, which increased the power of our study. Moreover, the association estimates from the pleiotropy-robust methods were consistent with the IVW estimate and did not indicate any model violations. Additionally, our mediation analysis with MR allowed for the assessment of the causal pathway between CCT and POAG. However, some limitations need to be taken into account. First, our outcome of interest was POAG so the effect of CCT on other types of glaucoma (eg, primary angle-closure glaucoma) was not assessed. Second, our MR models assumed a linear relationship between CCT and POAG and no interaction between these two factors. Third, we should keep in mind that an association does not mean causality.

    In conclusion, contrary to most observational studies, our data provided evidence for a positive association of CCT with POAG, with almost one-third of the CCT effect being mediated through IOP changes. Triangulation of evidence from different types of research studies, with different key sources of bias, is warranted to confirm these results.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    Not applicable.

    Acknowledgments

    We want to acknowledge the participants and investigators of the FinnGen and UK Biobank studies.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Tham Y-C,
      2. Li X,
      3. Wong TY, et al
      . Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2014;121:2081–90. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Weinreb RN,
      2. Leung CKS,
      3. Crowston JG, et al
      . Primary open-angle glaucoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016;2:16067. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.67
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      1. Sng CCA,
      2. Ang M,
      3. Barton K
      . Central corneal thickness in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2017;28:120–6. doi:10.1097/ICU.0000000000000335
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    4. ↵
      1. Medeiros FA,
      2. Weinreb RN
      . Is corneal thickness an independent risk factor for glaucoma? Ophthalmology 2012;119:435–6. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.01.018
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Jiang X,
      2. Varma R,
      3. Wu S, et al
      . Baseline risk factors that predict the development of open-angle glaucoma in a population: the los angeles latino eye study. Ophthalmology 2012;119:2245–53. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.05.030
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Leske MC,
      2. Heijl A,
      3. Hyman L, et al
      . Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1965–72. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.016
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Gordon MO,
      2. Beiser JA,
      3. Brandt JD, et al
      . The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:714–20. doi:10.1001/archopht.120.6.714
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Khawaja AP,
      2. Jansonius NM
      . Potential for collider bias in studies examining the association of central corneal thickness with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2022;63:3. doi:10.1167/iovs.63.12.3
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    9. ↵
      1. Sanderson E,
      2. Glymour MM,
      3. Holmes MV, et al
      . Mendelian randomization. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2022;2:6. doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00092-5
    10. ↵
      1. Choquet H,
      2. Melles RB,
      3. Yin J, et al
      . A multiethnic genome-wide analysis of 44,039 individuals identifies 41 new loci associated with central corneal thickness. Commun Biol 2020;3:301. doi:10.1038/s42003-020-1037-7
    11. ↵
      1. Carter AR,
      2. Sanderson E,
      3. Hammerton G, et al
      . Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:465–78. doi:10.1007/s10654-021-00757-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Iglesias AI,
      2. Mishra A,
      3. Vitart V, et al
      . Cross-ancestry genome-wide association analysis of corneal thickness strengthens link between complex and mendelian eye diseases. Nat Commun 2018;9:1864. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03646-6
    13. ↵
      1. Kurki MI,
      2. Karjalainen J,
      3. Palta P, et al
      . FinnGen provides genetic insights from a well-phenotyped isolated population. Nature 2023;613:508–18. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05473-8
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    14. ↵
      1. Pan-UKB team
      . Pan-ancestry genetic analysis of the UK biobank. 2020. Available: https://pan.ukbb.broadinstitute.org
    15. ↵
      1. Skrivankova VW,
      2. Richmond RC,
      3. Woolf BAR, et al
      . Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2021;375:n2233. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2233
    16. ↵
      1. Burgess S,
      2. Davey Smith G,
      3. Davies NM, et al
      . Guidelines for performing mendelian randomization investigations: update for summer 2023. Wellcome Open Res 2019;4:186. doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15555.3
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    17. ↵
      1. Simcoe MJ,
      2. Khawaja AP,
      3. Hysi PG, et al
      . Genome-wide association study of corneal biomechanical properties identifies over 200 loci providing insight into the genetic etiology of ocular diseases. Hum Mol Genet 2020;29:3154–64. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddaa155
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    18. ↵
      1. Bycroft C,
      2. Freeman C,
      3. Petkova D, et al
      . The UK biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 2018;562:203–9. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0579-z
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Hemani G,
      2. Tilling K,
      3. Davey Smith G
      . Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data. PLoS Genet 2017;13:e1007081. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007081
    20. ↵
      1. Frazer KA,
      2. Ballinger DG,
      3. Cox DR, et al
      . A second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs. Nat New Biol 2007;449:851–61. doi:10.1038/nature06258
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      1. Burgess S,
      2. Dudbridge F,
      3. Thompson SG
      . Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods. Stat Med 2016;35:1880–906. doi:10.1002/sim.6835
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Burgess S,
      2. Foley CN,
      3. Zuber V
      . Inferring causal relationships between risk factors and outcomes from genome-wide association study data. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2018;19:303–27. doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021731
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    23. ↵
      1. Hemani G,
      2. Bowden J,
      3. Davey Smith G
      . Evaluating the potential role of pleiotropy in mendelian randomization studies. Hum Mol Genet 2018;27:R195–208. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddy163
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Lawlor DA,
      2. Harbord RM,
      3. Sterne JAC, et al
      . Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008;27:1133–63. doi:10.1002/sim.3034
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Kamat MA,
      2. Blackshaw JA,
      3. Young R, et al
      . PhenoScanner V2: an expanded tool for searching human genotype-phenotype associations. Bioinform 2019;35:4851–3. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz469
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Sanderson E
      . Multivariable mendelian randomization and mediation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2021;11:a038984. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a038984
    27. ↵
      1. Slob EAW,
      2. Burgess S
      . A comparison of robust mendelian randomization methods using summary data. Genet Epidemiol 2020;44:313–29. doi:10.1002/gepi.22295
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Ogasawara H
      . Asymptotic standard errors of estimated standard errors in structural equation modelling. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2002;55:213–29. doi:10.1348/000711002760554552
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. R Core Team
      . R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria; 2022. Available: https://www.R-project.org/
    30. ↵
      1. Doughty MJ,
      2. Zaman ML
      . Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 2000;44:367–408. doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(00)00110-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Holmberg MJ,
      2. Andersen LW
      . Collider bias. JAMA 2022;327:1282–3. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.1820
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Hernán MA,
      2. Monge S
      . Selection bias due to conditioning on a collider. BMJ 2023;381:1135. doi:10.1136/bmj.p1135
      OpenUrlCrossRef

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • AJT and MN are joint senior authors.

    • Contributors AK, S-EB and MN contributed to the study conception and design, drafted the manuscript and analysed the data. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, provided administrative, technical or material support and approved the final version. AK has full responsibility for the finished work and the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

    • Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. We acknowledge support from the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Münster.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.