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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10351998)

  • 1. Necessary sample size for method comparison studies based on regression analysis.
    Linnet K
    Clin Chem; 1999 Jun; 45(6 Pt 1):882-94. PubMed ID: 10351998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Validity of linear regression in method comparison studies: is it limited by the statistical model or the quality of the analytical input data?
    Stöckl D; Dewitte K; Thienpont LM
    Clin Chem; 1998 Nov; 44(11):2340-6. PubMed ID: 9799762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Performance of Deming regression analysis in case of misspecified analytical error ratio in method comparison studies.
    Linnet K
    Clin Chem; 1998 May; 44(5):1024-31. PubMed ID: 9590376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression.
    Bilić-Zulle L
    Biochem Med (Zagreb); 2011; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 22141206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The detection of gene-environment interaction for continuous traits: should we deal with measurement error by bigger studies or better measurement?
    Wong MY; Day NE; Luan JA; Chan KP; Wareham NJ
    Int J Epidemiol; 2003 Feb; 32(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 12690008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A BASIC computer program for evaluating the effect of sample distribution on the least-squares regression slope estimate.
    Parvin CA
    Comput Biomed Res; 1985 Apr; 18(2):114-20. PubMed ID: 3838712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Lot-to-lot reagent verification: Effect of sample size and replicate measurement on linear regression approaches.
    Koh NWX; Markus C; Loh TP; Lim CY;
    Clin Chim Acta; 2022 Sep; 534():29-34. PubMed ID: 35810798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Incorrect least-squares regression coefficients in method-comparison analysis.
    Cornbleet PJ; Gochman N
    Clin Chem; 1979 Mar; 25(3):432-8. PubMed ID: 262186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A simple approach to power and sample size calculations in logistic regression and Cox regression models.
    Vaeth M; Skovlund E
    Stat Med; 2004 Jun; 23(11):1781-92. PubMed ID: 15160408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Discordance rate, a new concept for combining diagnostic decisions with analytical performance characteristics. 1. Application in method or sample system comparisons and in defining decision limits.
    Haeckel R; Wosniok W; Puentmann I
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2003 Mar; 41(3):347-55. PubMed ID: 12705345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. General deming regression for estimating systematic bias and its confidence interval in method-comparison studies.
    Martin RF
    Clin Chem; 2000 Jan; 46(1):100-4. PubMed ID: 10620577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Caution regarding the choice of standard deviations to guide sample size calculations in clinical trials.
    Chen H; Zhang N; Lu X; Chen S
    Clin Trials; 2013 Aug; 10(4):522-9. PubMed ID: 23794405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Real world scenarios in rare variant association analysis: the impact of imbalance and sample size on the power in silico.
    Zhang X; Basile AO; Pendergrass SA; Ritchie MD
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Jan; 20(1):46. PubMed ID: 30669967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: but which regression?
    Ludbrook J
    Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol; 2010 Jul; 37(7):692-9. PubMed ID: 20337658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding.
    Boef AG; Dekkers OM; Vandenbroucke JP; le Cessie S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Nov; 67(11):1258-64. PubMed ID: 25124167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sample size, power calculations, and their implications for the cost of thorough studies of drug induced QT interval prolongation.
    Malik M; Hnatkova K; Batchvarov V; Gang Y; Smetana P; Camm AJ
    Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2004 Dec; 27(12):1659-69. PubMed ID: 15613131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Detailed analysis of the relative power of direct and indirect association studies and the implications for their interpretation.
    Moskvina V; O'Donovan MC
    Hum Hered; 2007; 64(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 17483598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reference interval studies: what is the maximum number of samples recommended?
    Hawkins RC; Badrick T
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2013 Nov; 51(11):2161-5. PubMed ID: 23798619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Modelling method comparison data.
    Dunn G; Roberts C
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1999 Jun; 8(2):161-79. PubMed ID: 10501651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.