Methods for mediation analysis with high-dimensional DNA methylation data: Possible choices and comparisons.

Epigenetic researchers often evaluate DNA methylation as a potential mediator of the effect of social/environmental exposures on a health outcome. Modern statistical methods for jointly evaluating many mediators have not been widely adopted. We compare seven methods for high-dimensional mediation analysis with continuous outcomes through both diverse simulations and analysis of DNAm data from a large multi-ethnic cohort in the United States, while providing an R package for their seamless implementation and adoption. Among the considered choices, the best-performing methods for detecting active mediators in simulations are the Bayesian sparse linear mixed model (BSLMM) and high-dimensional mediation analysis (HDMA); while the preferred methods for estimating the global mediation effect are high-dimensional linear mediation analysis (HILMA) and principal component mediation analysis (PCMA). We provide guidelines for epigenetic researchers on choosing the best method in practice and offer suggestions for future methodological development.

Methods for large-scale single mediator hypothesis testing: Possible choices and comparisons.

Mediation hypothesis testing for a large number of mediators is challenging due to the composite structure of the null hypothesis, H 0 : α ß = 0 ${H}_{0}:\alpha \beta =0$ ( α $\alpha $ : effect of the exposure on the mediator after adjusting for confounders; ß $\beta $ : effect of the mediator on the outcome after adjusting for exposure and confounders). In this paper, we reviewed three classes of methods for large-scale one at a time mediation hypothesis testing. These methods are commonly used for continuous outcomes and continuous mediators assuming there is no exposure-mediator interaction so that the product α ß $\alpha \beta $ has a causal interpretation as the indirect effect. The first class of methods ignores the impact of different structures under the composite null hypothesis, namely, (1) α = 0 , ß ≠ 0 $\alpha =0,\beta \ne 0$ ; (2) α ≠ 0 , ß = 0 $\alpha \ne 0,\beta =0$ ; and (3) α = ß = 0 $\alpha =\beta =0$ . The second class of methods weights the reference distribution under each case of the null to form a mixture reference distribution. The third class constructs a composite test statistic using the three p values obtained under each case of the null so that the reference distribution of the composite statistic is approximately U ( 0 , 1 ) $U(0,1)$ . In addition to these existing methods, we developed the Sobel-comp method belonging to the second class, which uses a corrected mixture reference distribution for Sobel's test statistic. We performed extensive simulation studies to compare all six methods belonging to these three classes in terms of the false positive rates (FPRs) under the null hypothesis and the true positive rates under the alternative hypothesis. We found that the second class of methods which uses a mixture reference distribution could best maintain the FPRs at the nominal level under the null hypothesis and had the greatest true positive rates under the alternative hypothesis. We applied all methods to study the mediation mechanism of DNA methylation sites in the pathway from adult socioeconomic status to glycated hemoglobin level using data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). We provide guidelines for choosing the optimal mediation hypothesis testing method in practice and develop an R package medScan available on the CRAN for implementing all the six methods.

Methods for Mediation Analysis with High-Dimensional DNA Methylation Data: Possible Choices and Comparison.

Epigenetic researchers often evaluate DNA methylation as a mediator between social/environmental exposures and disease, but modern statistical methods for jointly evaluating many mediators have not been widely adopted. We compare seven methods for high-dimensional mediation analysis with continuous outcomes through both diverse simulations and analysis of DNAm data from a large national cohort in the United States, while providing an R package for their implementation. Among the considered choices, the best-performing methods for detecting active mediators in simulations are the Bayesian sparse linear mixed model by Song et al. (2020) and high-dimensional mediation analysis by Gao et al. (2019); while the superior methods for estimating the global mediation effect are high-dimensional linear mediation analysis by Zhou et al. (2021) and principal component mediation analysis by Huang and Pan (2016). We provide guidelines for epigenetic researchers on choosing the best method in practice and offer suggestions for future methodological development.

Epidemiologic Questionnaire (EPI-Q) - a scalable, app-based health survey linked to electronic health record and genotype data.

The Epidemiologic Questionnaire (EPI-Q) was established to collect broad, uniform, self-reported health data to supplement electronic health record (EHR) and genotype information from participants in the University of Michigan (UM) Precision Health cohorts. Recruitment of EPI-Q participants, who were already enrolled in 1 of 3 ongoing UM Precision Health cohorts-the Michigan Genomics Initiative, Mental Health Biobank, and Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Diabetes cohorts-began in March 2020. Of 54,043 retrospective invitations, 5,577 individuals enrolled, representing a 10.3% response rate. Of these, 3,502 (63.7%) were female, and the average age was 56.1 years (standard deviation, 15.4). The baseline survey comprises 11 modules on topics including personal and family health history, lifestyle, and cancer screening and history. Additionally, 11 optional modules cover topics including financial toxicity, occupational exposure, and life meaning. The questions are based on standardized and validated instruments used in other cohorts, and we share resources to expedite development of similar surveys. Data are collected via the MyDataHelps platform, which enables current and future participants to share non-Michigan Medicine EHR data. Recruitment is ongoing. Cohort data are available to those with institutional review board approval; for details, contact the Data Office for Clinical and Translational Research (DataOffice@umich.edu).

Assessing the added value of linking electronic health records to improve the prediction of self-reported COVID-19 testing and diagnosis.

Since the beginning of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a focus of research has been to identify risk factors associated with COVID-19-related outcomes, such as testing and diagnosis, and use them to build prediction models. Existing studies have used data from digital surveys or electronic health records (EHRs), but very few have linked the two sources to build joint predictive models. In this study, we used survey data on 7,054 patients from the Michigan Genomics Initiative biorepository to evaluate how well self-reported data could be integrated with electronic records for the purpose of modeling COVID-19-related outcomes. We observed that among survey respondents, self-reported COVID-19 diagnosis captured a larger number of cases than the corresponding EHRs, suggesting that self-reported outcomes may be better than EHRs for distinguishing COVID-19 cases from controls. In the modeling context, we compared the utility of survey- and EHR-derived predictor variables in models of survey-reported COVID-19 testing and diagnosis. We found that survey-derived predictors produced uniformly stronger models than EHR-derived predictors-likely due to their specificity, temporal proximity, and breadth-and that combining predictors from both sources offered no consistent improvement compared to using survey-based predictors alone. Our results suggest that, even though general EHRs are useful in predictive models of COVID-19 outcomes, they may not be essential in those models when rich survey data are already available. The two data sources together may offer better prediction for COVID severity, but we did not have enough severe cases in the survey respondents to assess that hypothesis in in our study.