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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10095133)

  • 1. An estimator of the mutant frequency in assays using transgenic animals.
    Delongchamp RR; Malling HV; Chen JB; Heflich RH
    Mutat Res; 1999 Mar; 440(1):101-8. PubMed ID: 10095133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Estimation of the average burst size of Phix174 am3, cs70 for use in mutation assays with transgenic mice.
    Delongchamp RR; Valentine CR; Malling HV
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2001; 37(4):356-60. PubMed ID: 11424186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mutation frequencies but not mutant frequencies in Big Blue mice fit a Poisson distribution.
    Nishino H; Schaid DJ; Buettner VL; Haavik J; Sommer SS
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 28(4):414-7. PubMed ID: 8991071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The genetic analysis of lacI mutations in sectored plaques from Big Blue transgenic mice.
    Stuart GR; Gorelick NJ; Andrews JL; de Boer JG; Glickman BW
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 28(4):385-92. PubMed ID: 8991067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Maximum likelihood estimation for N-mixture models.
    Haines LM
    Biometrics; 2016 Dec; 72(4):1235-1245. PubMed ID: 27043770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Statistical analysis of lacZ mutant frequency data from MutaMouse mutagenicity assays.
    Fung KY; Douglas GR; Krewski D
    Mutagenesis; 1998 May; 13(3):249-55. PubMed ID: 9643583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A robust estimator of mutation rates.
    Wu X; Strome ED; Meng Q; Hastings PJ; Plon SE; Kimmel M
    Mutat Res; 2009 Feb; 661(1-2):101-9. PubMed ID: 19100753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improved confidence intervals when the sample is counted an integer times longer than the blank.
    Potter WE; Strzelczyk JJ
    Health Phys; 2011 May; 100 Suppl 2():S67-70. PubMed ID: 21451310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Maximum likelihood estimation of the negative binomial dispersion parameter for highly overdispersed data, with applications to infectious diseases.
    Lloyd-Smith JO
    PLoS One; 2007 Feb; 2(2):e180. PubMed ID: 17299582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimal experimental design and sample size for the statistical evaluation of data from somatic mutation and recombination tests (SMART) in Drosophila.
    Frei H; Würgler FE
    Mutat Res; 1995 Apr; 334(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 7885379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sampling--how big a sample?
    Aitken CG
    J Forensic Sci; 1999 Jul; 44(4):750-60. PubMed ID: 10432610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interlaboratory comparison: liver spontaneous mutant frequency from lambda/lacI transgenic mice (Big Blue) (II).
    Young RR; Rogers BJ; Provost GS; Short JM; Putman DL
    Mutat Res; 1995 Mar; 327(1-2):67-73. PubMed ID: 7870100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Count data distributions and their zero-modified equivalents as a framework for modelling microbial data with a relatively high occurrence of zero counts.
    Gonzales-Barron U; Kerr M; Sheridan JJ; Butler F
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2010 Jan; 136(3):268-77. PubMed ID: 19913934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Relative risk, risk difference and rate difference models for sparse stratified data: a pseudo likelihood approach.
    Stijnen T; Van Houwelingen HC
    Stat Med; 1993 Dec; 12(24):2285-303. PubMed ID: 8134733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios.
    Petersen MR; Deddens JA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Feb; 8():9. PubMed ID: 18307814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. High plating density improves Big Blue system efficiency without loss of sensitivity.
    Heinmöller PW; Hill KA; Sommer SS
    Mutat Res; 2000 Sep; 453(1):97-103. PubMed ID: 11006417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Estimating the scaled mutation rate and mutation bias with site frequency data.
    Vogl C
    Theor Popul Biol; 2014 Dec; 98():19-27. PubMed ID: 25453604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A new transgenic mouse mutagenesis test system using Spi- and 6-thioguanine selections.
    Nohmi T; Katoh M; Suzuki H; Matsui M; Yamada M; Watanabe M; Suzuki M; Horiya N; Ueda O; Shibuya T; Ikeda H; Sofuni T
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 28(4):465-70. PubMed ID: 8991079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Confidence of 100 per cent sensitivity and specificity].
    Valenzuela CY
    Rev Med Chil; 1997 Feb; 125(2):228-35. PubMed ID: 9430946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Poisson and negative binomial item count techniques for surveys with sensitive question.
    Tian GL; Tang ML; Wu Q; Liu Y
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Apr; 26(2):931-947. PubMed ID: 25519889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.