George Davey Smith

Bio: George Davey Smith is an academic researcher from University of Bristol. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Mendelian randomization. The author has an hindex of 224, co-authored 2540 publications receiving 248373 citations. Previous affiliations of George Davey Smith include Keele University & Western Infirmary.

Modern Heuristic Search Methods

Abstract: Partial table of contents: Modern Heuristic Techniques. TECHNIQUES. Localized Simulated Annealing in Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization. Observing Logical Interdependencies in Tabu Search: Methods and Results. Reactive Search: Toward Self-Tuning Heuristics. Integrating Local Search into Genetic Algorithms. CASE STUDIES. Local Search for Steiner Trees in Graphs. Local Search Strategies for the Vehicle Fleet Mix Problem. A Tabu Search Algorithm for Some Discrete-Continuous Scheduling Problems. The Analysis of Waste Flow Data from Multi-Unit Industrial Complexes Using Genetic Algorithms. The Evolution of Solid Object Designs Using Genetic Algorithms. The Convoy Movement Problem with Initial Delays. A Brief Comparison of Some Evolutionary Optimization Methods. Index.

Use of accelerometers in a large field-based study of children: protocols, design issues, and effects on precision.

Abstract: Background: Objective methods can improve accuracy of physical activity measurement in field studies but uncertainties remain about their use. Methods: Children age 11 years from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), were asked to wear a uni-axial accelerometer (MTI Actigraph) for 7 days. Results: Of 7159 children who attended for assessment, 5595 (78%) provided valid measures. The reliability coefficient for 3 days of recording was .7 and the power to detect a difference of 0.07 SDs (P ≤ .05) was > 90%. Measures tended to be higher on the first day of recording (17 counts/min; 95% CI, 10–24) and if children wore the monitor for fewer days, but these differences were small. The children who provided valid measures of activity were different from those who did not, but the differences were modest. Conclusion: Objective measures of physical activity can be incorporated into large longitudinal studies of children.

Two-step epigenetic Mendelian randomization: a strategy for establishing the causal role of epigenetic processes in pathways to disease

Abstract: The burgeoning interest in the field of epigenetics has precipitated the need to develop approaches to strengthen causal inference when considering the role of epigenetic mediators of environmental exposures on disease risk. Epigenetic markers, like any other molecular biomarker, are vulnerable to confounding and reverse causation. Here, we present a strategy, based on the well-established framework of Mendelian randomization, to interrogate the causal relationships between exposure, DNA methylation and outcome. The two-step approach first uses a genetic proxy for the exposure of interest to assess the causal relationship between exposure and methylation. A second step then utilizes a genetic proxy for DNA methylation to interrogate the causal relationship between DNA methylation and outcome. The rationale, origins, methodology, advantages and limitations of this novel strategy are presented.

Dietary fat intake and prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review.

Abstract: Objective To assess the effect of reduction or modification of dietary fat intake on total and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. Design Systematic review. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CAB abstracts, SIGLE, CVRCT registry, and biographies were searched; trials known to experts were included. Included studies Randomised controlled trials stating intention to reduce or modify fat or cholesterol intake in healthy adult participants over at least six months. Inclusion decisions, validity, and data extraction were duplicated. Meta›analysis (random effects methodology), meta›regression, and funnel plots were performed. Results 27 studies (30 902 person years of observation) were included. Alteration of dietary fat intake had small effects on total mortality (rate ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.12). Cardiovascular mortality was reduced by 9% (0.91; 0.77 to 1.07) and cardiovascular events by 16% (0.84; 0.72 to 0.99), which was attenuated (0.86; 0.72 to 1.03) in a sensitivity analysis that excluded a trial using oily fish. Trials with at least two years’ follow up provided stronger evidence of protection from cardiovascular events (0.76; 0.65 to 0.90). Conclusions There is a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk with reduction or modification of dietary fat intake, seen particularly in trials of longer duration.

Association Between Telomere Length and Risk of Cancer and Non-Neoplastic Diseases A Mendelian Randomization Study

Abstract: IMPORTANCE: The causal direction and magnitude of the association between telomere length and incidence of cancer and non-neoplastic diseases is uncertain owing to the susceptibility of observational studies to confounding and reverse causation. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a Mendelian randomization study, using germline genetic variants as instrumental variables, to appraise the causal relevance of telomere length for risk of cancer and non-neoplastic diseases. DATA SOURCES: Genomewide association studies (GWAS) published up to January 15, 2015. STUDY SELECTION: GWAS of noncommunicable diseases that assayed germline genetic variation and did not select cohort or control participants on the basis of preexisting diseases. Of 163 GWAS of noncommunicable diseases identified, summary data from 103 were available. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Summary association statistics for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are strongly associated with telomere length in the general population. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disease per standard deviation (SD) higher telomere length due to germline genetic variation. RESULTS: Summary data were available for 35 cancers and 48 non-neoplastic diseases, corresponding to 420 081 cases (median cases, 2526 per disease) and 1 093 105 controls (median, 6789 per disease). Increased telomere length due to germline genetic variation was generally associated with increased risk for site-specific cancers. The strongest associations (ORs [95% CIs] per 1-SD change in genetically increased telomere length) were observed for glioma, 5.27 (3.15-8.81); serous low-malignant-potential ovarian cancer, 4.35 (2.39-7.94); lung adenocarcinoma, 3.19 (2.40-4.22); neuroblastoma, 2.98 (1.92-4.62); bladder cancer, 2.19 (1.32-3.66); melanoma, 1.87 (1.55-2.26); testicular cancer, 1.76 (1.02-3.04); kidney cancer, 1.55 (1.08-2.23); and endometrial cancer, 1.31 (1.07-1.61). Associations were stronger for rarer cancers and at tissue sites with lower rates of stem cell division. There was generally little evidence of association between genetically increased telomere length and risk of psychiatric, autoimmune, inflammatory, diabetic, and other non-neoplastic diseases, except for coronary heart disease (OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]), abdominal aortic aneurysm (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.81]), celiac disease (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.28-0.61]) and interstitial lung disease (OR, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.05-0.15]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is likely that longer telomeres increase risk for several cancers but reduce risk for some non-neoplastic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases.

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Abstract: Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate