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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11391691)

  • 1. Bias reduction for risk ratio and vaccine effect estimators.
    Chick SE; Barth-Jones DC; Koopman JS
    Stat Med; 2001 Jun; 20(11):1609-24. PubMed ID: 11391691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Estimating vaccine efficacy from household data observed over time.
    Davis XM; Haber M
    Stat Med; 2004 Oct; 23(19):2961-74. PubMed ID: 15351955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses: a simulation study of Bayesian and frequentist implementations of three models.
    Dohoo I; Stryhn H; Sanchez J
    Prev Vet Med; 2007 Sep; 81(1-3):38-55. PubMed ID: 17477995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating vaccine efficacy from outbreak size household data in the presence of heterogeneous transmission probabilities.
    Davis XM; Waller LA; Haber M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(4):499-516. PubMed ID: 16892910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies.
    Sidik K; Jonkman JN
    Stat Med; 2007 Apr; 26(9):1964-81. PubMed ID: 16955539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Interpreting treatment-effect estimates with heterogeneity and choice: simulation model results.
    Brooks JM; Fang G
    Clin Ther; 2009 Apr; 31(4):902-19. PubMed ID: 19446162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Conditions of validation and use of the screening method for vaccine efficacy evaluation.
    Mary-Krause M; Mary JY; Valleron AJ
    Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 1993; 41(2):155-60. PubMed ID: 8493394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
    Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
    Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Controlling for confounding in the presence of measurement error in hierarchical models: a Bayesian approach.
    Gryparis A; Coull BA; Schwartz J
    J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 17 Suppl 2():S20-8. PubMed ID: 18079761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Trading variance reduction with unbiasedness: the regularized subspace information criterion for robust model selection in kernel regression.
    Sugiyama M; Kawanabe M; Müller KR
    Neural Comput; 2004 May; 16(5):1077-104. PubMed ID: 15070511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A method of bias correction for maximal reliability with dichotomous measures.
    Penev S; Raykov T
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2010 Feb; 63(Pt 1):163-75. PubMed ID: 19397846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of several point estimators of the odds ratio in a single 2 x 2 contingency table.
    Walter SD; Cook RJ
    Biometrics; 1991 Sep; 47(3):795-811. PubMed ID: 1742440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A hybrid model for reducing ecological bias.
    Salway R; Wakefield J
    Biostatistics; 2008 Jan; 9(1):1-17. PubMed ID: 17575322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bayesian adaptive estimation of arbitrary points on a psychometric function.
    García-Pérez MA; Alcalá-Quintana R
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2007 May; 60(Pt 1):147-74. PubMed ID: 17535585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional cluster-randomization designs using mixed effects regression for binary outcomes: bias and coverage of frequentist and Bayesian methods.
    Localio AR; Berlin JA; Have TR
    Stat Med; 2006 Aug; 25(16):2720-36. PubMed ID: 16345043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The performance of random coefficient regression in accounting for residual confounding.
    Gustafson P; Greenland S
    Biometrics; 2006 Sep; 62(3):760-8. PubMed ID: 16984318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Simultaneous versus sequential pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic population analysis using an iterative two-stage Bayesian technique.
    Proost JH; Schiere S; Eleveld DJ; Wierda JM
    Biopharm Drug Dispos; 2007 Nov; 28(8):455-73. PubMed ID: 17847121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of efficiency and bias of free energies computed by exponential averaging, the Bennett acceptance ratio, and thermodynamic integration.
    Shirts MR; Pande VS
    J Chem Phys; 2005 Apr; 122(14):144107. PubMed ID: 15847516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On the potential of measurement error to induce differential bias on odds ratio estimates: an example from radon epidemiology.
    Heid IM; Küchenhoff H; Wellmann J; Gerken M; Kreienbrock L; Wichmann HE
    Stat Med; 2002 Nov; 21(21):3261-78. PubMed ID: 12375303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Supplementary analysis of probabilities at the termination of a group sequential phase II trial.
    Liu A; Wu C; Yu KF; Gehan E
    Stat Med; 2005 Apr; 24(7):1009-27. PubMed ID: 15565737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.