scispace - formally typeset
S

Stephen Burgess

Researcher at University of Cambridge

Publications -  407
Citations -  42532

Stephen Burgess is an academic researcher from University of Cambridge. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mendelian randomization & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 76, co-authored 332 publications receiving 25069 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephen Burgess include Stanford University & Cooperative Research Centre.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression

TL;DR: An adaption of Egger regression can detect some violations of the standard instrumental variable assumptions, and provide an effect estimate which is not subject to these violations, and provides a sensitivity analysis for the robustness of the findings from a Mendelian randomization investigation.
Journal ArticleDOI

Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator.

TL;DR: A novel weighted median estimator for combining data on multiple genetic variants into a single causal estimate is presented, which is consistent even when up to 50% of the information comes from invalid instrumental variables.
Journal ArticleDOI

The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome

TL;DR: MR-Base is a platform that integrates a curated database of complete GWAS results (no restrictions according to statistical significance) with an application programming interface, web app and R packages that automate 2SMR, and includes several sensitivity analyses for assessing the impact of horizontal pleiotropy and other violations of assumptions.
Journal ArticleDOI

Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data.

TL;DR: It is concluded that Mendelian randomization investigations using summarized data from uncorrelated variants are similarly efficient to those using individual‐level data, although the necessary assumptions cannot be so fully assessed.
Journal ArticleDOI

Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method

TL;DR: There are several reasons why causal estimates from the MR-Egger method may be biased and have inflated Type 1 error rates in practice, including violations of the InSIDE assumption and the influence of outlying variants.