164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36037248)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Extending Causality Tests with Genetic Instruments: An Integration of Mendelian Randomization with the Classical Twin Design.
Minică CC; Dolan CV; Boomsma DI; de Geus E; Neale MC
Behav Genet; 2018 Jul; 48(4):337-349. PubMed ID: 29882082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption.
Bowden J; Del Greco M F; Minelli C; Zhao Q; Lawlor DA; Sheehan NA; Thompson J; Davey Smith G
Int J Epidemiol; 2019 Jun; 48(3):728-742. PubMed ID: 30561657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Weak-instrument robust tests in two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization.
Wang S; Kang H
Biometrics; 2022 Dec; 78(4):1699-1713. PubMed ID: 34213007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Use of the instrumental inequalities in simulated mendelian randomization analyses with coarsened exposures.
Diemer EW; Shi J; Hernan MA; Swanson SA
Eur J Epidemiol; 2024 May; 39(5):491-499. PubMed ID: 38819552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Profile-likelihood Bayesian model averaging for two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization in the presence of horizontal pleiotropy.
Shapland CY; Zhao Q; Bowden J
Stat Med; 2022 Mar; 41(6):1100-1119. PubMed ID: 35060160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Testing and correcting for weak and pleiotropic instruments in two-sample multivariable Mendelian randomization.
Sanderson E; Spiller W; Bowden J
Stat Med; 2021 Nov; 40(25):5434-5452. PubMed ID: 34338327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
