To weight or not to weight? Studying the effect of selection bias in three large EHR-linked biobanks

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo explore the role of selection bias adjustment by weighting electronic health record (EHR)-linked biobank data for commonly performed analyses.Materials and methodsWe mapped diagnosis (ICD code) data to standardized phecodes from three EHR-linked biobanks with varying recruitment strategies: All of Us (AOU; n=244,071), Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI; n=81,243), and UK Biobank (UKB; n=401,167). Using 2019 National Health Interview Survey data, we constructed selection weights for AOU and MGI to be more representative of the US adult population. We used weights previously developed for UKB to represent the UKB-eligible population. We conducted four common descriptive and analytic tasks comparing unweighted and weighted results.ResultsFor AOU and MGI, estimated phecode prevalences decreased after weighting (weighted-unweighted median phecode prevalence ratio [MPR]: 0.82 and 0.61), while UKB’s estimates increased (MPR: 1.06). Weighting minimally impacted latent phenome dimensionality estimation. Comparing weighted versus unweighted PheWAS for colorectal cancer, the strongest associations remained unaltered and there was large overlap in significant hits. Weighting affected the estimated log-odds ratio for sex and colorectal cancer to align more closely with national registry-based estimates.DiscussionWeighting had limited impact on dimensionality estimation and large-scale hypothesis testing but impacted prevalence and association estimation more. Results from untargeted association analyses should be followed by weighted analysis when effect size estimation is of interest for specific signals.ConclusionEHR-linked biobanks should report recruitment and selection mechanisms and provide selection weights with defined target populations. Researchers should consider their intended estimands, specify source and target populations, and weight EHR-linked biobank analyses accordingly.