You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I came across a strange issue recently, that the correlation between instrument and phenotype became great that the upper limit of 1, when I perform > directionality_test
I dug into the source code, and noticed the following ones: r_exp <- sqrt(sum(r_exp[!is.na(r_exp) | is.na(r_out)]^2)) r_out <- sqrt(sum(r_out[!is.na(r_exp) | is.na(r_out)]^2))
As tens of SNP were used as instruments, I suspect that these non-weak IVs aggregated as a great-that-one correlation, which lead the NA result of the Steiger test.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
I came across a strange issue recently, that the correlation between instrument and phenotype became great that the upper limit of 1, when I perform > directionality_test
I dug into the source code, and noticed the following ones:
r_exp <- sqrt(sum(r_exp[!is.na(r_exp) | is.na(r_out)]^2))
r_out <- sqrt(sum(r_out[!is.na(r_exp) | is.na(r_out)]^2))
As tens of SNP were used as instruments, I suspect that these non-weak IVs aggregated as a great-that-one correlation, which lead the NA result of the Steiger test.
Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions