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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11890315)

  • 1. Testing for conditional multiple marginal independence.
    Bilder CR; Loughin TM
    Biometrics; 2002 Mar; 58(1):200-8. PubMed ID: 11890315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Testing for marginal independence between two categorical variables with multiple responses.
    Bilder CR; Loughin TM
    Biometrics; 2004 Mar; 60(1):241-8. PubMed ID: 15032795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Biostatistics Series Module 4: Comparing Groups - Categorical Variables.
    Hazra A; Gogtay N
    Indian J Dermatol; 2016; 61(4):385-92. PubMed ID: 27512183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The score test for independence in R x C contingency tables with missing data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM
    Biometrics; 1996 Jun; 52(2):751-62. PubMed ID: 8672711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Sample size for case-control studies using Cochran's statistic.
    Woolson RF; Bean JA; Rojas PB
    Biometrics; 1986 Dec; 42(4):927-32. PubMed ID: 3814733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Combining 2 x 2 tables that contain structural zeros.
    Johnson WD; May WL
    Stat Med; 1995 Sep; 14(17):1901-11. PubMed ID: 8532983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Testing for independence in J×K contingency tables with complex sample survey data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM; Sinha D; Hevelone N; Giovannucci E; Hu JC
    Biometrics; 2015 Sep; 71(3):832-40. PubMed ID: 25762089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of tests of contingency tables.
    Amiri S; Modarres R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(5):784-796. PubMed ID: 27936354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A computer program for testing average partial association in three-way contingency tables (PARCAT).
    Landis JR; Cooper MM; Kennedy T; Koch GG
    Comput Programs Biomed; 1979 May; 9(3):223-46. PubMed ID: 436406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. "Percentaging" contingency tables: It really does matter how you do it.
    Knapp TR
    Res Nurs Health; 2015 Aug; 38(4):323-5. PubMed ID: 25990211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Testing conditional independence in sets of I × J tables by means of moment and correlation score tests with application to HPV vaccine.
    Iannario M; Lang JB
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(25):4573-4587. PubMed ID: 27346660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Analysis of residuals in contingency tables: another nail in the coffin of conditional approaches to significance testing.
    García-Pérez MA; Núñez-Antón V; Alcalá-Quintana R
    Behav Res Methods; 2015 Mar; 47(1):147-61. PubMed ID: 24788323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An accurate test for homogeneity of odds ratios based on Cochran's Q-statistic.
    Kulinskaya E; Dollinger MB
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Jun; 15():49. PubMed ID: 26054650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Adjustments to the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square statistic and odds ratio variance estimator when the data are clustered.
    Donald A; Donner A
    Stat Med; 1987 Jun; 6(4):491-9. PubMed ID: 3629050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Mantel-Haenszel statistic for testing the association between a polychotomous exposure and a rare outcome.
    Hakulinen T
    Am J Epidemiol; 1981 Feb; 113(2):192-7. PubMed ID: 7468576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A simple test of association for contingency tables with multiple column responses.
    Decady YJ; Thomas DR
    Biometrics; 2000 Sep; 56(3):893-6. PubMed ID: 10985233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of procedures for testing the equality of survival distributions.
    Joe H; Koziol JA; Petkau AJ
    Biometrics; 1981 Jun; 37(2):327-40. PubMed ID: 7272418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A new framework of statistical inferences based on the valid joint sampling distribution of the observed counts in an incomplete contingency table.
    Tian GL; Li HQ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1712-1736. PubMed ID: 26048903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On the first-order Rao-Scott correction of the Umesh-Loughin-Scherer statistic.
    Bilder CR; Loughin TM
    Biometrics; 2001 Dec; 57(4):1253-5. PubMed ID: 11764268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A revisit to contingency table and tests of independence: bootstrap is preferred to Chi-square approximations as well as Fisher's exact test.
    Lin JJ; Chang CH; Pal N
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):438-58. PubMed ID: 24905809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.