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 *

232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28379526)

  • 1. The challenging interpretation of instrumental variable estimates under monotonicity.
    Swanson SA; Hernán MA
    Int J Epidemiol; 2018 Aug; 47(4):1289-1297. PubMed ID: 28379526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Definition and evaluation of the monotonicity condition for preference-based instruments.
    Swanson SA; Miller M; Robins JM; Hernán MA
    Epidemiology; 2015 May; 26(3):414-20. PubMed ID: 25782755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream?
    Hernán MA; Robins JM
    Epidemiology; 2006 Jul; 17(4):360-72. PubMed ID: 16755261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Causal null hypotheses of sustained treatment strategies: What can be tested with an instrumental variable?
    Swanson SA; Labrecque J; Hernán MA
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2018 Aug; 33(8):723-728. PubMed ID: 29721747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Sensitivity analysis and power for instrumental variable studies.
    Wang X; Jiang Y; Zhang NR; Small DS
    Biometrics; 2018 Dec; 74(4):1150-1160. PubMed ID: 29603714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mendelian randomization analysis of case-control data using structural mean models.
    Bowden J; Vansteelandt S
    Stat Med; 2011 Mar; 30(6):678-94. PubMed ID: 21337362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Survival Bias in Mendelian Randomization Studies: A Threat to Causal Inference.
    Smit RAJ; Trompet S; Dekkers OM; Jukema JW; le Cessie S
    Epidemiology; 2019 Nov; 30(6):813-816. PubMed ID: 31373921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Physician's Prescribing Preference as an Instrumental Variable: Exploring Assumptions Using Survey Data.
    Boef AG; le Cessie S; Dekkers OM; Frey P; Kearney PM; Kerse N; Mallen CD; McCarthy VJ; Mooijaart SP; Muth C; Rodondi N; Rosemann T; Russell A; Schers H; Virgini V; de Waal MW; Warner A; Gussekloo J; den Elzen WP
    Epidemiology; 2016 Mar; 27(2):276-83. PubMed ID: 26605813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Causal Genetic Inference Using Haplotypes as Instrumental Variables.
    Wang F; Meyer NJ; Walley KR; Russell JA; Feng R
    Genet Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 40(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 26625855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Power calculator for instrumental variable analysis in pharmacoepidemiology.
    Walker VM; Davies NM; Windmeijer F; Burgess S; Martin RM
    Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Oct; 46(5):1627-1632. PubMed ID: 28575313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.