522 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23045203)
1. The effect of non-differential measurement error on bias, precision and power in Mendelian randomization studies.
Pierce BL; VanderWeele TJ
Int J Epidemiol; 2012 Oct; 41(5):1383-93. PubMed ID: 23045203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic.
Bowden J; Del Greco M F; Minelli C; Davey Smith G; Sheehan NA; Thompson JR
Int J Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 45(6):1961-1974. PubMed ID: 27616674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Severity of bias of a simple estimator of the causal odds ratio in Mendelian randomization studies.
Harbord RM; Didelez V; Palmer TM; Meng S; Sterne JA; Sheehan NA
Stat Med; 2013 Mar; 32(7):1246-58. PubMed ID: 23080538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mendelian randomization studies: a review of the approaches used and the quality of reporting.
Boef AG; Dekkers OM; le Cessie S
Int J Epidemiol; 2015 Apr; 44(2):496-511. PubMed ID: 25953784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interpretation and Potential Biases of Mendelian Randomization Estimates With Time-Varying Exposures.
Labrecque JA; Swanson SA
Am J Epidemiol; 2019 Jan; 188(1):231-238. PubMed ID: 30239571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Power and sample size calculations for Mendelian randomization studies using one genetic instrument.
Freeman G; Cowling BJ; Schooling CM
Int J Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 42(4):1157-63. PubMed ID: 23934314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use of the instrumental inequalities in simulated mendelian randomization analyses with coarsened exposures.
Diemer EW; Shi J; Hernan MA; Swanson SA
Eur J Epidemiol; 2024 May; 39(5):491-499. PubMed ID: 38819552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Correcting the Standard Errors of 2-Stage Residual Inclusion Estimators for Mendelian Randomization Studies.
Palmer TM; Holmes MV; Keating BJ; Sheehan NA
Am J Epidemiol; 2017 Nov; 186(9):1104-1114. PubMed ID: 29106476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants.
Pierce BL; Ahsan H; Vanderweele TJ
Int J Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 40(3):740-52. PubMed ID: 20813862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Bias and mean squared error in Mendelian randomization with invalid instrumental variables.
Deng L; Fu S; Yu K
Genet Epidemiol; 2024 Feb; 48(1):27-41. PubMed ID: 37970963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Approximation of bias and mean-squared error in two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses.
Deng L; Zhang H; Song L; Yu K
Biometrics; 2020 Jun; 76(2):369-379. PubMed ID: 31651042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Regression calibration for classical exposure measurement error in environmental epidemiology studies using multiple local surrogate exposures.
Bateson TF; Wright JM
Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Aug; 172(3):344-52. PubMed ID: 20573838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Applying Mendelian randomization to appraise causality in relationships between nutrition and cancer.
Wade KH; Yarmolinsky J; Giovannucci E; Lewis SJ; Millwood IY; Munafò MR; Meddens F; Burrows K; Bell JA; Davies NM; Mariosa D; Kanerva N; Vincent EE; Smith-Byrne K; Guida F; Gunter MJ; Sanderson E; Dudbridge F; Burgess S; Cornelis MC; Richardson TG; Borges MC; Bowden J; Hemani G; Cho Y; Spiller W; Richmond RC; Carter AR; Langdon R; Lawlor DA; Walters RG; Vimaleswaran KS; Anderson A; Sandu MR; Tilling K; Davey Smith G; Martin RM; Relton CL;
Cancer Causes Control; 2022 May; 33(5):631-652. PubMed ID: 35274198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies.
Burgess S; Thompson SG;
Int J Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 40(3):755-64. PubMed ID: 21414999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cross-fitted instrument: A blueprint for one-sample Mendelian randomization.
Denault WRP; Bohlin J; Page CM; Burgess S; Jugessur A
PLoS Comput Biol; 2022 Aug; 18(8):e1010268. PubMed ID: 36037248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of bias-correction methods for exposure measurement error using repeated measurements with and without missing data.
Batistatou E; McNamee R
Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(28):3467-80. PubMed ID: 22733598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection.
Varma S; Simon R
BMC Bioinformatics; 2006 Feb; 7():91. PubMed ID: 16504092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators.
Pierce BL; Burgess S
Am J Epidemiol; 2013 Oct; 178(7):1177-84. PubMed ID: 23863760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. MR-BOIL: Causal inference in one-sample Mendelian randomization for binary outcome with integrated likelihood method.
Shi D; Wang Y; Zhang Z; Cao Y; Hu YQ
Genet Epidemiol; 2023 Jun; 47(4):332-357. PubMed ID: 36808763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
