Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 30, 2026.

Genetic predictors of participation in optional components of UK Biobank

Jessica Tyrrell, Jie Zheng, Robin Beaumont and 6 more

Nature Communications · 2021 · CC BY

doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21073-y

Abstract

Large studies such as UK Biobank are increasingly used for GWAS and Mendelian randomization (MR) studies. However, selection into and dropout from studies may bias genetic and phenotypic associations. We examine genetic factors affecting participation in four optional components in up to 451,306 UK Biobank participants. We used GWAS to identify genetic variants associated with participation, MR to estimate effects of phenotypes on participation, and genetic correlations to compare participation bias across different studies. 32 variants were associated with participation in one of the optional components ( P < 6 × 10 −9 ), including loci with links to intelligence and Alzheimer’s disease. Genetic correlations demonstrated that participation bias was common across studies. MR showed that longer educational duration, older menarche and taller stature increased participation, whilst higher levels of adiposity, dyslipidaemia, neuroticism, Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia reduced participation. Our effect estimates can be used for sensitivity analysis to account for selective participation biases in genetic or non-genetic analyses.

References 43

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.

    Lamers F, et al. Sociodemographic and psychiatric determinants of attrition in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Compr. Psychiatry. 2012;53:63-70.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.01.011

  5. 5.

    Martin J, et al. Association of genetic risk for schizophrenia with nonparticipation over time in a population-based cohort study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2016;183:1149-1158.

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/kww009

  6. 6.

    Adams, M. J. et al. Factors associated with sharing e-mail information and mental health survey participation in large population cohorts. Int. J. Epidemiol. 49, 410–421 (2020).

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyz134

  7. 7.
  8. 8.

    Keyes KM, Westreich D. UK Biobank, big data, and the consequences of non-representativeness. Lancet. 2019;393:1297.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(18)33067-8

  9. 9.
  10. 10.

    Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 1998;316:140-144.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.316.7125.140

  11. 11.
  12. 12.

    Savage JE, et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence. Nat. Genet. 2018;50:912-919.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41588-018-0152-6

  13. 13.

    Lee JJ, et al. Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nat. Genet. 2018;50:1112-1121.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3

  14. 14.
  15. 15.

    Whitaker D, Stygall J, Harrison M, Newman S. Relationship between white cell count, neuropsychologic outcome, and microemboli in 161 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:1358-1363.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.01.042

  16. 16.

    Kao TW, et al. White blood cell count and psychomotor cognitive performance in the elderly. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2011;41:513-520.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02438.x

  17. 17.

    International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics, C., et al. Analysis of immune-related loci identifies 48 new susceptibility variants for multiple sclerosis. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:1353-1360.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.2770

  18. 18.

    Neale, B. M. UK Biobank GWAS.http://www.nealelab.is/uk-biobank/ (2018).

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Poirier J, et al. Apolipoprotein E polymorphism and Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet. 1993;342:697-699.

    Not in our library10.1016/0140-6736(93)91705-q

  20. 20.

    Morris JA, et al. An atlas of genetic influences on osteoporosis in humans and mice. Nat. Genet. 2019;51:258-266.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41588-018-0302-x

  21. 21.
  22. 22.

    Zhang Y, Seshadri S, Ellison RC, Heeren T, Felson DT. Bone mineral density and verbal memory impairment: third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2001;154:795-802.

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/154.9.795

  23. 23.

    Okbay A, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature. 2016;533:539-542.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature17671

  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.

    Prins BP, et al. Genome-wide analysis of health-related biomarkers in the UK household longitudinal study reveals novel associations. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:11008.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-10812-1

  27. 27.
  28. 28.

    Naimi TS, et al. Selection biases in observational studies affect associations between ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption and mortality. Addiction. 2017;112:207-214.

    Not in our library10.1111/add.13451

  29. 29.

    Smith GD, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2003;32:1-22.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyg070

  30. 30.

    Domingue BW, et al. Mortality selection in a genetic sample and implications for association studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2017;46:1285-1294.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyx041

  31. 31.

    Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat. Methods Med Res. 2013;22:278-295.

    Not in our library10.1177/0962280210395740

  32. 32.

    Smith LH, VanderWeele TJ. Bounding bias due to selection. Epidemiology. 2019;30:509-516.

    Not in our library10.1097/ede.0000000000001032

  33. 33.

    Tudball, M., Zhao, Q., Hughes, R., Tilling, K. & Bowden, J. An interval estimation approach to sample selection bias. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.10159 (2019).

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Connelly R, Platt L. Cohort profile: UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). Int. J. Epidemiol. 2014;43:1719-1725.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyu001

  35. 35.

    Collins R. What makes UK Biobank special? Lancet. 2012;379:1173-1174.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60404-8

  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.

    Loh PR, et al. Efficient Bayesian mixed-model analysis increases association power in large cohorts. Nat. Genet. 2015;47:284-290.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.3190

  41. 41.
  42. 42.

    Bulik-Sullivan B, et al. An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nat. Genet. 2015;47:1236-1241.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.3406

  43. 43.

Cited by papers we hold 4

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.