Abstract:Abstract The use electronic health record (EHR)-linked biobanks, including All of Us (AOU), the Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI), and the UK Biobank (UKB), has become increasingly common in cancer research. However, each has a different participant recruitment strategy resulting in non-probability samples, which can lead to selection bias. An unanswered question is whether researchers should use selections weights when analyzing these data. Using colorectal cancer as the test case, we investigate the impact of using such weights on descriptive and analytic tasks in these three biobanks. We curated sociodemographic and clinical diagnosis data for 726,841 individuals (n = 244,071, 81,243, and 401,167, in AOU, MGI, and UKB, respectively). EHR ICD (diagnosis) code data were mapped to broader 2,042 codes, called phecodes, using the new phecode X mapping table developed by researchers at Vanderbilt University. Selection weights were constructed in AOU and MGI to make them more representative of the US adult population, using data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey; previously described weights for the UKB were used. We estimated phenomewide prevalences, pairwise correlations, and phenome dimensionality (via principal components analysis). To investigate the role of weighting on conclusions from hypothesis testing and association estimation, we conducted a colorectal cancer phenomewide association study and estimated the sex-colorectal cancer log-odds ratio, respectively. We found that phecode prevalences in AOU and MGI decreased following weighting (median prevalence ratio [MPR]: 0.82 and 0.61, respectively) while those in UKB increased (MPR: 1.06). MGI is enriched for phecodes compared to AOU (MPR: 1.15) and UKB (MPR: 6.28). Weighting PCA had minimal impact on phenome dimensionality (e.g., 732 PCs explaining 95% of cumulative variation in AOU vs. 711 after weighting). Weighted PheWAS for colorectal cancer identified 21 hits not identified in unweighted PheWAS, but only one was from a new disease category. Weighted estimates of the female-colorectal cancer log-odds ratio overlapped with the benchmark range in MGI and UKB though resulted in a null association in AOU. Weighting had limited impact on dimensionality estimation and hypothesis testing but were important to consider for prevalence and association estimation. Results from untargeted analyses should be followed up with targeted analyses using curated weights. The importance of weights depends on the estimates obtained and inference goals and can improve the representativeness of results for cancer-related outcomes based on EHR-linked biobank data. Importantly, EHR-linked biobanks should be explicit in reporting recruitment and selection mechanisms and when possible, supply selection weights to researchers for population-based inference along with a clear definition of the target population. Citation Format: Maxwell Salvatore, Ritoban Kundu, Xu Shi, Christopher R. Friese, Seunggeun Lee, Lars G. Fritsche, Alison M. Mondul, David Hanauer, Celeste L. Pearce, Bhramar Mukherjee. To weight or not to weight? Studying the effect of selection bias in three EHR-linked biobanks with applications to colorectal cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 4866.

Increasing Representativeness in the All of Us Cohort Using Inverse Probability Weighting

Adjusted Logistic Propensity Weighting Methods for Population Inference using Nonprobability Volunteer-Based Epidemiologic Cohorts

Developing non-response weights to account for attrition-related bias in a longitudinal pregnancy cohort

Adjustment for Biased Sampling Using NHANES Derived Propensity Weights

Inverse probability weighting for self-selection bias correction in the investigation of social inequality in mortality

Participation bias in the UK Biobank distorts genetic associations and downstream analyses

To weight or not to weight? The effect of selection bias in 3 large electronic health record-linked biobanks and recommendations for practice

Abstract 4866: To weight or not to weight? Studying the effect of selection bias in three EHR-linked biobanks with applications to colorectal cancer

Reducing Information and Selection Bias in EHR-Linked Biobanks via Genetics-Informed Multiple Imputation and Sample Weighting

Adaptive Recruitment Resource Allocation to Improve Cohort Representativeness in Participatory Biomedical Datasets

The covariate-adjusted residual estimator and its use in both randomized trials and observational settings

A framework for understanding selection bias in real-world healthcare data

Exploring large weight deletion and the ability to balance confounders when using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the presence of rare treatment decisions

Balancing efficacy and computational burden: weighted mean, multiple imputation, and inverse probability weighting methods for item non-response in reliable scales

Analysis of combined probability and nonprobability samples: A simulation evaluation and application to a teen smoking behavior survey

A propensity score weighting approach to integrate aggregated data in random-effect individual-level data meta-analysis

Impact of Participation Bias on Disease Prevalence Estimation in the Research Program: A Case Study of Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke

Robust weights that optimally balance confounders for estimating marginal hazard ratios

One-Step weighting to generalize and transport treatment effect estimates to a target population

Reflection on modern methods: a note on variance estimation when using inverse probability weighting to handle attrition in cohort studies

Estimating dementia incidence in insured older Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California: an application of inverse odds of selection weights