BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Stephen Burgess

Stephen Burgess contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsGenomicsQuantitative Methods

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

Illustrating the structures of bias from immortal time using directed acyclic graphs

Background: Immortal time is a period of follow-up during which death or the study outcome cannot occur by design. Bias from immortal time has been increasingly recognized in epidemiologic studies. However, the fundamental causes and structures of bias from immortal time have not been explained systematically using a structural approach. Methods: We use an example "Do Nobel Prize winners live longer than less recognized scientists?" for illustration. We illustrate how immortal time arises and present the structures of bias from immortal time using time-varying directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We further explore the structures of bias with the exclusion of immortal time and with the presence of competing risks. We discuss how these structures are shared by different study designs in pharmacoepidemiology and provide solutions, where possible, to address the bias. Results: We illustrate that immortal time arises from using postbaseline information to define exposure or eligibility. We use time-varying DAGs to explain the structures of bias from immortal time are confounding by survival until exposure allocation or selection bias from selecting on survival until eligibility. We explain that excluding immortal time from the follow-up does not fully address this confounding or selection bias, and that the presence of competing risks can worsen the bias. Bias from immortal time may be avoided by aligning time zero, exposure allocation and eligibility, and by excluding individuals with prior exposure. Conclusions: Understanding bias from immortal time in terms of confounding or selection bias helps researchers identify and thereby avoid or ameliorate this bias.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Bias in multivariable Mendelian randomization studies due to measurement error on exposures

Multivariable Mendelian randomization estimates the causal effect of multiple exposures on an outcome, typically using summary statistics of genetic variant associations. However, exposures of interest in Mendelian randomization applications will often be measured with error. The summary statistics will therefore not be of the genetic associations with the exposure, but with the exposure measured with error. Classical measurement error will not bias genetic association estimates but will increase their standard errors. With a single exposure, this will result in bias toward the null in a two sample framework. However, this will not necessarily be the case with multiple correlated exposures. In this paper, we examine how the direction and size of bias, as well as coverage, power and type I error rates in multivariable Mendelian randomization studies are affected by measurement error on exposures. We show how measurement error can be accounted for in a maximum likelihood framework. We consider two applied examples. In the first, we show that measurement error leads to the effect of body mass index on coronary heart disease risk to be overestimated, and that of waist-to-hip ratio to be underestimated. In the second, we show that the proportion of the effect of education on coronary heart disease risk which is mediated by body mass index, smoking and blood pressure may be underestimated if measurement error is not taken into account.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Statistical Methods for cis-Mendelian Randomization with Two-sample Summary-level Data

Mendelian randomization is the use of genetic variants to assess the existence of a causal relationship between a risk factor and an outcome of interest. Here, we focus on two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization analyses with many correlated variants from a single gene region, and particularly on cis-Mendelian randomization studies which use protein expression as a risk factor. Such studies must rely on a small, curated set of variants from the studied region; using all variants in the region requires inverting an ill-conditioned genetic correlation matrix and results in numerically unstable causal effect estimates. We review methods for variable selection and estimation in cis-Mendelian randomization with summary-level data, ranging from stepwise pruning and conditional analysis to principal components analysis, factor analysis and Bayesian variable selection. In a simulation study, we show that the various methods have a comparable performance in analyses with large sample sizes and strong genetic instruments. However, when weak instrument bias is suspected, factor analysis and Bayesian variable selection produce more reliable inferences than simple pruning approaches, which are often used in practice. We conclude by examining two case studies, assessing the effects of LDL-cholesterol and serum testosterone on coronary heart disease risk using variants in the HMGCR and SHBG gene regions respectively.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access