Abstract
<jats:p>Mendelian Randomization (MR) is a popular tool for inferring causal relationships between traits using genetic variants as instrumental variables. These methods have been extended to also determine the direction of causality. However, causal direction cannot be inferred from a statistical test or estimation procedure (i.e. from data alone) without further assumptions and the methods operating characteristics and relative performances are not well understood. We conducted a comprehensive simulation study to illustrate this issue by evaluating type I error and power of 17 summary-based MR methods for inferring the effect direction. These methods fall within three methodological families: MR Steiger, Causal Direction (CD), and bidirectional MR approaches, with scenarios ranging across combinations of horizontal pleiotropy, unmeasured confounding, measurement error, longitudinal feedback, and varying sample sizes. While most methods achieved sufficient power levels under the alternative hypothesis in most scenarios, we found that every method was susceptible to inferring the wrong causal direction or under powered, and no method consistently maintained both correct type 1 error control and high power. In our applications, we evaluated the effect direction between the trait pairs body mass index (BMI) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and between BMI and asthma. To help researchers to evaluate the 17 methods to infer the effect direction and consider these challenges in their own data, we have developed MRdirection, an R package that runs the simulation studies examining the 17 directional MR methods across different user-defined scenarios. Our study, together with the accompanying R package, provides researchers with a tool for examining directional MR methods given different underlying assumptions.</jats:p>