432 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31651042)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Association of maternal circulating 25(OH)D and calcium with birth weight: A mendelian randomisation analysis.
Thompson WD; Tyrrell J; Borges MC; Beaumont RN; Knight BA; Wood AR; Ring SM; Hattersley AT; Freathy RM; Lawlor DA
PLoS Med; 2019 Jun; 16(6):e1002828. PubMed ID: 31211782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The use of two-sample methods for Mendelian randomization analyses on single large datasets.
Minelli C; Del Greco M F; van der Plaat DA; Bowden J; Sheehan NA; Thompson J
Int J Epidemiol; 2021 Nov; 50(5):1651-1659. PubMed ID: 33899104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Weak and pleiotropy robust sex-stratified Mendelian randomization in the one sample and two sample settings.
Karageorgiou V; Tyrrell J; Mckinley TJ; Bowden J
Genet Epidemiol; 2023 Mar; 47(2):135-151. PubMed ID: 36682072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Testing concordance of instrumental variable effects in generalized linear models with application to Mendelian randomization.
Dai JY; Chan KC; Hsu L
Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(23):3986-4007. PubMed ID: 24863158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Model checking via testing for direct effects in Mendelian Randomization and transcriptome-wide association studies.
Deng Y; Pan W
PLoS Comput Biol; 2021 Aug; 17(8):e1009266. PubMed ID: 34339418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. On Mendelian randomization analysis of case-control study.
Zhang H; Qin J; Berndt SI; Albanes D; Deng L; Gail MH; Yu K
Biometrics; 2020 Jun; 76(2):380-391. PubMed ID: 31625599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Effect of selection bias on two sample summary data based Mendelian randomization.
Wang K; Han S
Sci Rep; 2021 Apr; 11(1):7585. PubMed ID: 33828182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation.
Carter AR; Sanderson E; Hammerton G; Richmond RC; Davey Smith G; Heron J; Taylor AE; Davies NM; Howe LD
Eur J Epidemiol; 2021 May; 36(5):465-478. PubMed ID: 33961203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of nonrandom selection mechanisms on the causal effect estimation for two-sample Mendelian randomization methods.
Yu Y; Hou L; Shi X; Sun X; Liu X; Yu Y; Yuan Z; Li H; Xue F
PLoS Genet; 2022 Mar; 18(3):e1010107. PubMed ID: 35298462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
