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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12766460)

  • 1. An Epidemiologic Note on Verification Bias: Implications for Estimation of Rates.
    Gambino B
    J Gambl Stud; 1999; 15(3):223-232. PubMed ID: 12766460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A Reply to Gambino's "An Epidemiologic Note on Verification Bias: Implications for Estimation of Rates".
    Abbott MW; Volberg RA
    J Gambl Stud; 1999; 15(3):233-242. PubMed ID: 12766461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Estimating Confidence Intervals and Sampling Proportions in Two-Stage Prevalence Designs.
    Gambino B
    J Gambl Stud; 1999; 15(3):243-245. PubMed ID: 12766462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optimal designs of two-stage studies for estimation of sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value.
    McNamee R
    Stat Med; 2002 Dec; 21(23):3609-25. PubMed ID: 12436459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Avoiding verification bias in screening test evaluation in resource poor settings: a case study from Zimbabwe.
    Gaffikin L; McGrath J; Arbyn M; Blumenthal PD
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(5):496-503. PubMed ID: 18827042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Efficiency of two-phase designs for prevalence estimation.
    McNamee R
    Int J Epidemiol; 2003 Dec; 32(6):1072-8. PubMed ID: 14681277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Estimation of disease prevalence, true positive rate, and false positive rate of two screening tests when disease verification is applied on only screen-positives: a hierarchical model using multi-center data.
    Stock EM; Stamey JD; Sankaranarayanan R; Young DM; Muwonge R; Arbyn M
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 36(2):153-60. PubMed ID: 21856264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?
    Gambino B
    J Gambl Stud; 2012 Dec; 28(4):573-605. PubMed ID: 22203270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The correction for bias in prevalence estimation with screening tests.
    Gambino B
    J Gambl Stud; 1997; 13(4):343-51. PubMed ID: 12913383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The validation of interviews for estimating morbidity.
    Kalter H
    Health Policy Plan; 1992 Mar; 7(1):30-9. PubMed ID: 10117988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. ROC curve estimation when covariates affect the verification process.
    Rodenberg C; Zhou XH
    Biometrics; 2000 Dec; 56(4):1256-62. PubMed ID: 11129488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Estimation of treatment effect in two-stage confirmatory oncology trials of personalized medicines.
    Li W; Chen C; Li X; Beckman RA
    Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(12):1843-1861. PubMed ID: 28303586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS).
    Stinchfield R
    Addict Behav; 2002; 27(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 11800216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Lifetime prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in New Zealand.
    Volberg RA; Abbott MW
    Int J Epidemiol; 1994 Oct; 23(5):976-83. PubMed ID: 7860178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.
    Philips Z; Ginnelly L; Sculpher M; Claxton K; Golder S; Riemsma R; Woolacoot N; Glanville J
    Health Technol Assess; 2004 Sep; 8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. PubMed ID: 15361314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Implication of inverse-probability weighting method in the evaluation of diagnostic test with verification bias].
    Kang L; Zhang S; Zhao F; Qiao Y
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2014 Mar; 35(3):329-32. PubMed ID: 24831638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of epirubicin clearance by limited sampling.
    Ralph LD; Thomson AH; Dobbs NA; Twelves C
    Br J Clin Pharmacol; 2004 Jun; 57(6):764-72. PubMed ID: 15151522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Adjusting for partial verification or workup bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    de Groot JA; Dendukuri N; Janssen KJ; Reitsma JB; Brophy J; Joseph L; Bossuyt PM; Moons KG
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 175(8):847-53. PubMed ID: 22422923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.