These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

1337 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27625185)

  • 1. Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization.
    Burgess S; Davies NM; Thompson SG
    Genet Epidemiol; 2016 Nov; 40(7):597-608. PubMed ID: 27625185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods.
    Burgess S; Dudbridge F; Thompson SG
    Stat Med; 2016 May; 35(11):1880-906. PubMed ID: 26661904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data.
    Burgess S; Butterworth A; Thompson SG
    Genet Epidemiol; 2013 Nov; 37(7):658-65. PubMed ID: 24114802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization.
    Burgess S; Small DS; Thompson SG
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Oct; 26(5):2333-2355. PubMed ID: 26282889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization.
    Burgess S; Thompson SG
    Int J Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 42(4):1134-44. PubMed ID: 24062299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Sample size and power calculations in Mendelian randomization with a single instrumental variable and a binary outcome.
    Burgess S
    Int J Epidemiol; 2014 Jun; 43(3):922-9. PubMed ID: 24608958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression.
    Bowden J; Davey Smith G; Burgess S
    Int J Epidemiol; 2015 Apr; 44(2):512-25. PubMed ID: 26050253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments.
    Burgess S; Thompson SG
    Stat Med; 2011 May; 30(11):1312-23. PubMed ID: 21432888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mendelian randomization with a binary exposure variable: interpretation and presentation of causal estimates.
    Burgess S; Labrecque JA
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2018 Oct; 33(10):947-952. PubMed ID: 30039250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using multiple genetic variants as instrumental variables for modifiable risk factors.
    Palmer TM; Lawlor DA; Harbord RM; Sheehan NA; Tobias JH; Timpson NJ; Davey Smith G; Sterne JA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2012 Jun; 21(3):223-42. PubMed ID: 21216802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption.
    Hartwig FP; Davey Smith G; Bowden J
    Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Dec; 46(6):1985-1998. PubMed ID: 29040600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Mendelian Randomization using Public Data from Genetic Consortia.
    Thompson JR; Minelli C; Del Greco M F
    Int J Biostat; 2016 Nov; 12(2):. PubMed ID: 27092657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization.
    Davies NM; von Hinke Kessler Scholder S; Farbmacher H; Burgess S; Windmeijer F; Smith GD
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(3):454-68. PubMed ID: 25382280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Improving bias and coverage in instrumental variable analysis with weak instruments for continuous and binary outcomes.
    Burgess S; Thompson SG
    Stat Med; 2012 Jul; 31(15):1582-600. PubMed ID: 22374818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 67.