Author
Listed:
- Tabea Schoeler
(University of Lausanne
University College London
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics)
- Jean-Baptiste Pingault
(University College London
King’s College London)
- Zoltán Kutalik
(University of Lausanne
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics
University Center for Primary Care and Public Health)
Abstract
Although the use of short self-report measures is common practice in biobank initiatives, such a phenotyping strategy is inherently prone to reporting errors. To explore challenges related to self-report errors, we first derived a reporting error score in the UK Biobank (UKBB; n = 73,127), capturing inconsistent self-reporting in time-invariant phenotypes across multiple measurement occasions. We then performed genome-wide scans on the reporting error score, applied downstream analyses (linkage disequilibrium score regression and Mendelian randomization) and compared its properties to the UKBB participation propensity. Finally, we improved phenotype resolution for 24 measures and inspected the changes in genomic findings. We found that reporting error was present across all 33 assessed self-report measures, with repeatability levels as low as 47% (childhood body size). Reporting error was not independent from UKBB participation, evidenced by the negative genetic correlation between the two outcomes (rg = −0.77), their shared causes (for example, education) and the loss in self-report accuracy following participation bias correction. Across all analyses, the impact of reporting error ranged from reduced power (for example, for gene discovery) to biased estimates (for example, if present in the exposure variable) and attenuation of genome-wide quantities (for example, 21% relative attenuation in SNP heritability for childhood height). Our findings highlight that both self-report accuracy and selective participation are competing biases and sources of poor reproducibility for biobank-scale research.
Suggested Citation
Tabea Schoeler & Jean-Baptiste Pingault & Zoltán Kutalik, 2025.
"The impact of self-report inaccuracy in the UK Biobank and its interplay with selective participation,"
Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(3), pages 584-594, March.
Handle:
RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-024-02061-w
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02061-w
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-024-02061-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.