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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10832919)

  • 1. Analyzing bioassay data using Bayesian methods--a primer.
    Miller G; Inkret WC; Schillaci ME; Martz HF; Little TT
    Health Phys; 2000 Jun; 78(6):598-613. PubMed ID: 10832919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Disaggregating measurement uncertainty from population variability and Bayesian treatment of uncensored results.
    Strom DJ; Joyce KE; MacLellan JA; Watson DJ; Lynch TP; Antonio CL; Birchall A; Anderson KK; Zharov PA
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Apr; 149(3):251-67. PubMed ID: 21693467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The confirmation rate of primary hits: a predictive model.
    Fogel P; Collette P; Dupront A; Garyantes T; Guédin D
    J Biomol Screen; 2002 Jun; 7(3):175-90. PubMed ID: 12097182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A method with flexible and balanced control of false negatives and false positives for hit selection in RNA interference high-throughput screening assays: a statistical terminology.
    Schechtman E
    J Biomol Screen; 2008 Apr; 13(4):309-11. PubMed ID: 18413895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Bayesian analysis and classification of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests without a gold standard.
    Zhang J; Chaloner K; McLinden JH; Stapleton JT
    Stat Med; 2013 Oct; 32(23):4102-17. PubMed ID: 23592433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A new method for identification of outliers in immunogenicity assay cut point data.
    Zhang J; Arends RH; Kubiak RJ; Roskos LK; Liang M; Lee N; Chen CC; Yang H
    J Immunol Methods; 2020; 484-485():112817. PubMed ID: 32615125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity values can be back-calculated when the odds ratios are known.
    Simel DL; Easter J; Tomlinson G
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Apr; 66(4):458-60. PubMed ID: 23021858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) test with the rabbit test: false positives and false negatives.
    van Noordwijk J; de Jong Y
    Dev Biol Stand; 1977; 34():39-43. PubMed ID: 838148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Bayesian analysis of the slope ratio bioassay.
    Mendoza M
    Biometrics; 1990 Dec; 46(4):1059-69. PubMed ID: 2085625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the clinical impact of prostate-specific antigen assay variability and nonequimolarity: a simulation study based on the population of the United Kingdom.
    Roddam AW; Price CP; Allen NE; Ward AM
    Clin Chem; 2004 Jun; 50(6):1012-6. PubMed ID: 15031266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Similar clinical performance of a novel chimeric thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor bioassay and an automated thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor binding assay in Graves' disease.
    Kamijo K; Murayama H; Uzu T; Togashi K; Olivo PD; Kahaly GJ
    Thyroid; 2011 Dec; 21(12):1295-9. PubMed ID: 22066477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Screening for possible human carcinogens and mutagens. False positives, false negatives: statistical implications.
    Lovell DP
    Mutat Res; 1989 Jul; 213(1):43-60. PubMed ID: 2747706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The probability of false positives in zero-dimensional analyses of one-dimensional kinematic, force and EMG trajectories.
    Pataky TC; Vanrenterghem J; Robinson MA
    J Biomech; 2016 Jun; 49(9):1468-1476. PubMed ID: 27067363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A Novel Lack-of-Fit Assessment as a System Suitability Test for Potency Assays.
    Li R; Cai W; Zocher M
    PDA J Pharm Sci Technol; 2017; 71(5):368-378. PubMed ID: 28624777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimation of the false negative fraction of a diagnostic kit through Bayesian regression model averaging.
    Ranyimbo AO; Held L
    Stat Med; 2006 Feb; 25(4):653-67. PubMed ID: 16158401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Using biological data from field studies with multiple reference sites as a basis for environmental management: the risks for false positives and false negatives.
    Hanson N
    J Environ Manage; 2011 Mar; 92(3):610-9. PubMed ID: 21035245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The quest for an optimal alpha.
    Miller J; Ulrich R
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0208631. PubMed ID: 30601826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Exact calculation of probabilities of false positives and false negatives for low background counting.
    Brodsky A
    Health Phys; 1992 Aug; 63(2):198-204. PubMed ID: 1399619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A statistics primer. Hypothesis testing.
    Kuhn JE; Greenfield ML; Wojtys EM
    Am J Sports Med; 1996; 24(5):702-3. PubMed ID: 8883697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.