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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11252012)

  • 21. A novel design for estimating relative accuracy of screening tests when complete disease verification is not feasible.
    Alonzo TA; Kittelson JM
    Biometrics; 2006 Jun; 62(2):605-12. PubMed ID: 16918926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Are tests for predicting pre-eclampsia good enough to make screening viable? A review of reviews and critical appraisal.
    Cnossen JS; ter Riet G; Mol BW; van der Post JA; Leeflang MM; Meads CA; Hyde C; Khan KS
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2009; 88(7):758-65. PubMed ID: 19488883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Accounting for within-patient correlation in assessing relative sensitivity of an adjunctive diagnostic test: application to lung cancer.
    Scharfstein DO; Ryea JL; Caffo B
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2110-26. PubMed ID: 17943997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of predictive values of two diagnostic tests from the same sample of subjects using weighted least squares.
    Wang W; Davis CS; Soong SJ
    Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(13):2215-29. PubMed ID: 16220470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Roaming through methodology. XXXII. False test results].
    van der Weijden T; van den Akker M
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 May; 145(19):906-8. PubMed ID: 11387865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of two commercial systems for computer-assisted detection (CAD) as an aid to interpreting screening mammograms.
    Ciatto S; Ambrogetti D; Bonardi R; Brancato B; Catarzi S; Risso G; Rosselli Del Turco M
    Radiol Med; 2004; 107(5-6):480-8. PubMed ID: 15195010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Green-coloured results on guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing should be considered positive.
    Skitek M
    Ann Clin Biochem; 2005 May; 42(Pt 3):234-5; author reply 235. PubMed ID: 15949162
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Empirical Bayes screening of many p-values with applications to microarray studies.
    Datta S; Datta S
    Bioinformatics; 2005 May; 21(9):1987-94. PubMed ID: 15691856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A new parametric method based on S-distributions for computing receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous diagnostic tests.
    Sorribas A; March J; Trujillano J
    Stat Med; 2002 May; 21(9):1213-35. PubMed ID: 12111875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The agreement chart as an alternative to the receiver-operating characteristic curve for diagnostic tests.
    Bangdiwala SI; Haedo AS; Natal ML; Villaveces A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Sep; 61(9):866-74. PubMed ID: 18687288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Evaluation of usefulness of faecal occult blood test. Prospective screening study in patients with colorectal neoplasia].
    Banaszkiewicz Z; Jawień A; Jarmocik P; Tojek K; Jankowski M; Switoński M
    Pol Merkur Lekarski; 2004 Dec; 17(102):579-82. PubMed ID: 15771126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Estimation of screening test (Hemoccult) sensitivity in colorectal cancer mass screening.
    Jouve JL; Remontet L; Dancourt V; Lejeune C; Benhamiche AM; Faivre J; Esteve J
    Br J Cancer; 2001 Jun; 84(11):1477-81. PubMed ID: 11384097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A 25-year follow-up of a population screened with faecal occult blood test in Finland.
    Malila N; Hakama M; Pukkala E
    Acta Oncol; 2007; 46(8):1103-6. PubMed ID: 17851857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Screening for colorectal cancer.
    Saliangas K
    Tech Coloproctol; 2004 Nov; 8 Suppl 1():s10-3. PubMed ID: 15655587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population.
    van Rossum LG; van Rijn AF; Laheij RJ; van Oijen MG; Fockens P; van Krieken HH; Verbeek AL; Jansen JB; Dekker E
    Gastroenterology; 2008 Jul; 135(1):82-90. PubMed ID: 18482589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Glucose infusion test (GIT) compared with the saline dilution technology in recirculation measurements.
    Magnasco A; Alloatti S
    Nephrol Dial Transplant; 2006 Nov; 21(11):3180-4. PubMed ID: 16891645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Diagnostic test accuracy and prevalence inferences based on joint and sequential testing with finite population sampling.
    Su CL; Gardner IA; Johnson WO
    Stat Med; 2004 Jul; 23(14):2237-55. PubMed ID: 15236428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparing diagnostic tests on benefit-risk.
    Pennello G; Pantoja-Galicia N; Evans S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(6):1083-1097. PubMed ID: 27548805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests].
    Marchi F
    G Ital Cardiol; 1981; 11(3):293-6. PubMed ID: 7286506
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Weighted Youden index and its two-independent-sample comparison based on weighted sensitivity and specificity.
    Li DL; Shen F; Yin Y; Peng JX; Chen PY
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2013 Mar; 126(6):1150-4. PubMed ID: 23506596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.