These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
45. Bias in a binary risk behaviour model subject to inconsistent reports and dropout in a South African high school cohort study. Chikobvu P; Lombard CJ; Flisher AJ; King G; Townsend L; Muller M Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(3):494-509. PubMed ID: 19012316 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Decision-making for long-term tube-feeding in cognitively impaired elderly people. Mitchell SL; Lawson FM CMAJ; 1999 Jun; 160(12):1705-9. PubMed ID: 10410631 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Probabilistic model of decompression sickness based on stochastic models of bubbling in tissues. Nikolaev VP Aviat Space Environ Med; 2004 Jul; 75(7):603-10. PubMed ID: 15267082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Decision by sampling. Stewart N; Chater N; Brown GD Cogn Psychol; 2006 Aug; 53(1):1-26. PubMed ID: 16438947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Probability theory, not the very guide of life. Juslin P; Nilsson H; Winman A Psychol Rev; 2009 Oct; 116(4):856-74. PubMed ID: 19839686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Making decisions and advising decisions in traumatic brain injury. Bonatti E; Zamarian L; Wagner M; Benke T; Hollosi P; Strubreither W; Delazer M Cogn Behav Neurol; 2008 Sep; 21(3):164-75. PubMed ID: 18797259 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Social Distance Reduces the Biases of Overweighting Small Probabilities and Underweighting Large Probabilities. Sun Q; Lu J; Zhang H; Liu Y Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2021 Aug; 47(8):1309-1324. PubMed ID: 33331239 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Can Personality Type Explain Heterogeneity in Probability Distortions? Capra CM; Jiang B; Engelmann JB; Berns GS J Neurosci Psychol Econ; 2013 Sep; 6(3):151-166. PubMed ID: 24639891 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Nonlinear Probability Weighting in Depression and Anxiety: Insights From Healthy Young Adults. Hagiwara K; Mochizuki Y; Chen C; Lei H; Hirotsu M; Matsubara T; Nakagawa S Front Psychiatry; 2022; 13():810867. PubMed ID: 35401267 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Eliciting benefit-risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Van Houtven G; Johnson FR; Kilambi V; Hauber AB Med Decis Making; 2011; 31(3):469-80. PubMed ID: 21310854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Inferring conjunctive probabilities from noisy samples: evidence for the configural weighted average model. Jenny MA; Rieskamp J; Nilsson H J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2014 Jan; 40(1):203-17. PubMed ID: 24128388 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Event-tree analysis with imprecise probabilities. You X; Tonon F Risk Anal; 2012 Feb; 32(2):330-44. PubMed ID: 22053780 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. The composition of the choice set modulates probability weighting in risky decisions. Grubb MA; Li Y; Larisch R; Hartmann J; Gottlieb J; Levy I Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2023 Jun; 23(3):666-677. PubMed ID: 36702993 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Comparison of the distortion of probability information in decision under risk and an equivalent visual task. Glaser C; Trommershäuser J; Mamassian P; Maloney LT Psychol Sci; 2012 Apr; 23(4):419-26. PubMed ID: 22395127 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]