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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12762453)

  • 41. Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias.
    Harel O; Zhou XH
    Stat Med; 2006 Nov; 25(22):3769-86. PubMed ID: 16435337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Estimation of Area Under the ROC Curve under nonignorable verification bias.
    Yu W; Kim JK; Park T
    Stat Sin; 2018 Oct; 28(4):2149-2166. PubMed ID: 31367164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification.
    Alonzo TA; Brinton JT; Ringham BM; Glueck DH
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1852-64. PubMed ID: 21495059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Approximate confidence intervals for the likelihood ratios of a binary diagnostic test in the presence of partial disease verification.
    Montero-Alonso MA; Roldán-Nofuentes JA
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(1):56-81. PubMed ID: 29584541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Evaluating the exposure and disease relationship with adjustment for different types of exposure misclassification: a regression approach.
    Kosinski AS; Flanders WD
    Stat Med; 1999 Oct; 18(20):2795-808. PubMed ID: 10521867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Statistical methods to correct for verification bias in diagnostic studies are inadequate when there are few false negatives: a simulation study.
    Cronin AM; Vickers AJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Nov; 8():75. PubMed ID: 19014457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard - An update.
    Umemneku Chikere CM; Wilson K; Graziadio S; Vale L; Allen AJ
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(10):e0223832. PubMed ID: 31603953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Bayesian analysis of diagnostic test accuracy when disease state is unverified for some subjects.
    Pennello GA
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Sep; 21(5):954-70. PubMed ID: 21830925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias.
    Choi BC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1992 Jun; 45(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 1607897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Evaluating bias and variability in diagnostic test reports.
    Mower WR
    Ann Emerg Med; 1999 Jan; 33(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 9867892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Incremental diagnostic accuracy of hybrid SPECT/CT coronary angiography in a population with an intermediate to high pre-test likelihood of coronary artery disease.
    Schaap J; Kauling RM; Boekholdt SM; Nieman K; Meijboom WB; Post MC; Van der Heyden JA; de Kroon TL; van Es HW; Rensing BJ; Verzijlbergen JF
    Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2013 Jul; 14(7):642-9. PubMed ID: 23291392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Studies of diagnostic test accuracy: Partial verification bias and test result-based sampling.
    Kohn MA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 May; 145():179-182. PubMed ID: 35124189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. How to deal with double partial verification when evaluating two index tests in relation to a reference test?
    van Geloven N; Brooze KA; Opmeer BC; Mol BW; Zwinderman AH
    Stat Med; 2012 May; 31(11-12):1265-76. PubMed ID: 22161741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Random effects modeling approaches for estimating ROC curves from repeated ordinal tests without a gold standard.
    Albert PS
    Biometrics; 2007 Jun; 63(2):593-602. PubMed ID: 17688512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A model for adjusting for nonignorable verification bias in estimation of the ROC curve and its area with likelihood-based approach.
    Liu D; Zhou XH
    Biometrics; 2010 Dec; 66(4):1119-28. PubMed ID: 20222937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. A new method to address verification bias in studies of clinical screening tests: cervical cancer screening assays as an example.
    Xue X; Kim MY; Castle PE; Strickler HD
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Mar; 67(3):343-53. PubMed ID: 24332397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
    Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Covariate adjustment in estimating the area under ROC curve with partially missing gold standard.
    Liu D; Zhou XH
    Biometrics; 2013 Mar; 69(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 23410529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Some issues in resolution of diagnostic tests using an imperfect gold standard.
    Hawkins DM; Garrett JA; Stephenson B
    Stat Med; 2001 Jul; 20(13):1987-2001. PubMed ID: 11427955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. COMPROC and CHECKNORM: computer programs for comparing accuracies of diagnostic tests using ROC curves in the presence of verification bias.
    Zhou XH; Higgs RE
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 1998 Nov; 57(3):179-86. PubMed ID: 9822855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.