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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10754617)

  • 21. Sample size requirements for the design of reliability studies: precision consideration.
    Shieh G
    Behav Res Methods; 2014 Sep; 46(3):808-22. PubMed ID: 24338600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg's formula.
    Springate SD
    Eur J Orthod; 2012 Apr; 34(2):158-63. PubMed ID: 21447784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Arterial and venous pharmacokinetics of morphine-6-glucuronide and impact of sample site on pharmacodynamic parameter estimates.
    Olofsen E; Mooren R; van Dorp E; Aarts L; Smith T; den Hartigh J; Dahan A; Sarton E
    Anesth Analg; 2010 Sep; 111(3):626-32. PubMed ID: 20547824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evaluating the performance of different procedures for constructing confidence intervals for coefficient alpha: a simulation study.
    Cui Y; Li J
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2012 Nov; 65(3):467-98. PubMed ID: 22295951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Large Sample Confidence Intervals for Item Response Theory Reliability Coefficients.
    Andersson B; Xin T
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2018 Feb; 78(1):32-45. PubMed ID: 29795945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A note on effective sample size for constructing confidence intervals for the difference of two proportions.
    Liu GF
    Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(2):163-9. PubMed ID: 22337507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A pharmacodynamic analysis method to determine the relative importance of drug concentration and treatment time on effect.
    Millenbaugh NJ; Wientjes MG; Au JL
    Cancer Chemother Pharmacol; 2000; 45(4):265-72. PubMed ID: 10755313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of the nonparametric estimation method in NONMEM VI.
    Savic RM; Kjellsson MC; Karlsson MO
    Eur J Pharm Sci; 2009 Apr; 37(1):27-35. PubMed ID: 19159684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Improving the estimation of parameter uncertainty distributions in nonlinear mixed effects models using sampling importance resampling.
    Dosne AG; Bergstrand M; Harling K; Karlsson MO
    J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn; 2016 Dec; 43(6):583-596. PubMed ID: 27730482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the correlations corrected for indirect range restriction.
    Li JC; Chan W; Cui Y
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2011 Nov; 64(3):367-87. PubMed ID: 21973092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis.
    van Smeden M; de Groot JA; Moons KG; Collins GS; Altman DG; Eijkemans MJ; Reitsma JB
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Nov; 16(1):163. PubMed ID: 27881078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Pharmacodynamic modeling of muscle relaxants: effect of design issues on results.
    Paul M; Fisher DM
    Anesthesiology; 2002 Mar; 96(3):711-7. PubMed ID: 11873049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Oracle estimation of parametric models under boundary constraints.
    Wong KY; Goldberg Y; Fine JP
    Biometrics; 2016 Dec; 72(4):1173-1183. PubMed ID: 27060984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Performance of using multiple stepwise algorithms for variable selection.
    Wiegand RE
    Stat Med; 2010 Jul; 29(15):1647-59. PubMed ID: 20552568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Mixed effects logistic regression models for longitudinal binary response data with informative drop-out.
    Ten Have TR; Kunselman AR; Pulkstenis EP; Landis JR
    Biometrics; 1998 Mar; 54(1):367-83. PubMed ID: 9544529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A comparison of methods for meta-analysis of a small number of studies with binary outcomes.
    Mathes T; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):366-381. PubMed ID: 29573180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Inference methods for saturated models in longitudinal clinical trials with incomplete binary data.
    Song JX
    Pharm Stat; 2006; 5(4):295-304. PubMed ID: 17128429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Standard errors and confidence intervals for correlations corrected for indirect range restriction: A simulation study comparing analytic and bootstrap methods.
    Kennet-Cohen T; Kleper D; Turvall E
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2018 Feb; 71(1):39-59. PubMed ID: 28631350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A comparison of confidence interval methods for the intraclass correlation coefficient in community-based cluster randomization trials with a binary outcome.
    Braschel MC; Svec I; Darlington GA; Donner A
    Clin Trials; 2016 Apr; 13(2):180-7. PubMed ID: 26415500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Confidence interval estimation for number of patient-years needed to treat.
    Zhu H; Wu X
    Pharm Stat; 2014; 13(6):403-9. PubMed ID: 25313518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.