202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35639294)
1. Avoiding collider bias in Mendelian randomization when performing stratified analyses.
Coscia C; Gill D; Benítez R; Pérez T; Malats N; Burgess S
Eur J Epidemiol; 2022 Jul; 37(7):671-682. PubMed ID: 35639294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A data-adaptive method for investigating effect heterogeneity with high-dimensional covariates in Mendelian randomization.
Tian H; Tom BDM; Burgess S
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Feb; 24(1):34. PubMed ID: 38341532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Relaxing parametric assumptions for non-linear Mendelian randomization using a doubly-ranked stratification method.
Tian H; Mason AM; Liu C; Burgess S
PLoS Genet; 2023 Jun; 19(6):e1010823. PubMed ID: 37390109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
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. Violation of the Constant Genetic Effect Assumption Can Result in Biased Estimates for Non-Linear Mendelian Randomization.
Burgess S
Hum Hered; 2023; 88(1):79-90. PubMed ID: 37651993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mendelian randomization in health research: using appropriate genetic variants and avoiding biased estimates.
Taylor AE; Davies NM; Ware JJ; VanderWeele T; Smith GD; Munafò MR
Econ Hum Biol; 2014 Mar; 13(100):99-106. PubMed ID: 24388127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Collider bias correction for multiple covariates in GWAS using robust multivariable Mendelian randomization.
Wang P; Lin Z; Xue H; Pan W
PLoS Genet; 2024 Apr; 20(4):e1011246. PubMed ID: 38648211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Adjusting for collider bias in genetic association studies using instrumental variable methods.
Cai S; Hartley A; Mahmoud O; Tilling K; Dudbridge F
Genet Epidemiol; 2022 Jul; 46(5-6):303-316. PubMed ID: 35583096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Exploiting collider bias to apply two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization methods to one-sample individual level data.
Barry C; Liu J; Richmond R; Rutter MK; Lawlor DA; Dudbridge F; Bowden J
PLoS Genet; 2021 Aug; 17(8):e1009703. PubMed ID: 34370750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Network Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate mediation in causal pathways.
Burgess S; Daniel RM; Butterworth AS; Thompson SG;
Int J Epidemiol; 2015 Apr; 44(2):484-95. PubMed ID: 25150977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mendelian randomization in the multivariate general linear model framework.
Allman PH; Aban I; Long DM; Patki A; MacKenzie T; Irvin MR; Lange LA; Lange E; Cutter G; Tiwari HK
Genet Epidemiol; 2022 Feb; 46(1):17-31. PubMed ID: 34672390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Two robust tools for inference about causal effects with invalid instruments.
Kang H; Lee Y; Cai TT; Small DS
Biometrics; 2022 Mar; 78(1):24-34. PubMed ID: 33616910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Contextualizing selection bias in Mendelian randomization: how bad is it likely to be?
Gkatzionis A; Burgess S
Int J Epidemiol; 2019 Jun; 48(3):691-701. PubMed ID: 30325422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Non-linear Mendelian randomization: detection of biases using negative controls with a focus on BMI, Vitamin D and LDL cholesterol.
Hamilton FW; Hughes DA; Spiller W; Tilling K; Davey Smith G
Eur J Epidemiol; 2024 May; 39(5):451-465. PubMed ID: 38789826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Causal relationship between smoking status, smoking frequency and bladder cancer: a Mendelian randomization study.
Pang L; Ding Z; Chai H; Li F; Wu M; Shuang W
Genes Genomics; 2023 Feb; 45(2):203-213. PubMed ID: 36508086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
