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 *

234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28379526)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Instrumental variable analysis of multiplicative models with potentially invalid instruments.
    Shardell M; Ferrucci L
    Stat Med; 2016 Dec; 35(29):5430-5447. PubMed ID: 27527517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Semiparametric methods for estimation of a nonlinear exposure-outcome relationship using instrumental variables with application to Mendelian randomization.
    Staley JR; Burgess S
    Genet Epidemiol; 2017 May; 41(4):341-352. PubMed ID: 28317167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies.
    Hogan JW; Lancaster T
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2004 Feb; 13(1):17-48. PubMed ID: 14746439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results.
    Brookhart MA; Schneeweiss S
    Int J Biostat; 2007; 3(1):Article 14. PubMed ID: 19655038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Application of the Instrumental Inequalities to a Mendelian Randomization Study With Multiple Proposed Instruments.
    Diemer EW; Labrecque J; Tiemeier H; Swanson SA
    Epidemiology; 2020 Jan; 31(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 31790379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding.
    Boef AG; Dekkers OM; Vandenbroucke JP; le Cessie S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Nov; 67(11):1258-64. PubMed ID: 25124167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A comparison of three methods of Mendelian randomization when the genetic instrument, the risk factor and the outcome are all binary.
    Vuistiner P; Bochud M; Rousson V
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(5):e35951. PubMed ID: 22590516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. An introduction to instrumental variables--part 2: Mendelian randomisation.
    Bennett DA
    Neuroepidemiology; 2010; 35(4):307-10. PubMed ID: 21042034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Mendelian randomization with Egger pleiotropy correction and weakly informative Bayesian priors.
    Schmidt AF; Dudbridge F
    Int J Epidemiol; 2018 Aug; 47(4):1217-1228. PubMed ID: 29253155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Survivor bias in Mendelian randomization analysis.
    Vansteelandt S; Dukes O; Martinussen T
    Biostatistics; 2018 Oct; 19(4):426-443. PubMed ID: 29028924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 'Mendelian randomization' equals instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments.
    Wehby GL; Ohsfeldt RL; Murray JC
    Stat Med; 2008 Jul; 27(15):2745-9. PubMed ID: 18344186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Review on correction methods related to the pleiotropic effect in Mendelian randomization].
    Gao X; Wang H; Wang T
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Mar; 40(3):360-365. PubMed ID: 30884619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. An introduction to instrumental variable assumptions, validation and estimation.
    Lousdal ML
    Emerg Themes Epidemiol; 2018; 15():1. PubMed ID: 29387137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 'Mendelian randomization': an approach for exploring causal relations in epidemiology.
    Gupta V; Walia GK; Sachdeva MP
    Public Health; 2017 Apr; 145():113-119. PubMed ID: 28359378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.