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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16435337)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Multiple imputation for the comparison of two screening tests in two-phase Alzheimer studies.
    Harel O; Zhou XH
    Stat Med; 2007 May; 26(11):2370-88. PubMed ID: 17054089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Multiple imputation to correct for partial verification bias revisited.
    de Groot JA; Janssen KJ; Zwinderman AH; Moons KG; Reitsma JB
    Stat Med; 2008 Dec; 27(28):5880-9. PubMed ID: 18752256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improved confidence intervals for the sensitivity at a fixed level of specificity of a continuous-scale diagnostic test.
    Zhou XH; Qin G
    Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):465-77. PubMed ID: 15635678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests must take into account the use of surrogate standards.
    Kang J; Brant R; Ghali WA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 May; 66(5):566-574.e1. PubMed ID: 23466018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bayesian estimation for performance measures of two diagnostic tests in the presence of verification bias.
    Aragon DC; Martinez EZ; Achcar JA
    J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Jul; 20(4):821-34. PubMed ID: 20496208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests.
    Alonzo TA
    Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):403-17. PubMed ID: 15543634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Verification and classification bias interactions in diagnostic test accuracy studies for fine-needle aspiration biopsy.
    Schmidt RL; Walker BS; Cohen MB
    Cancer Cytopathol; 2015 Mar; 123(3):193-201. PubMed ID: 25521425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Correcting for partial verification bias: a comparison of methods.
    de Groot JA; Janssen KJ; Zwinderman AH; Bossuyt PM; Reitsma JB; Moons KG
    Ann Epidemiol; 2011 Feb; 21(2):139-48. PubMed ID: 21109454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A Bayesian approach to simultaneously adjusting for verification and reference standard bias in diagnostic test studies.
    Lu Y; Dendukuri N; Schiller I; Joseph L
    Stat Med; 2010 Oct; 29(24):2532-43. PubMed ID: 20799249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias by Ofer Harel and Xiao-Hua Zhou, Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:3769-3786.
    Hanley JA; Dendukuri N; Begg CB
    Stat Med; 2007 Jul; 26(15):3046-7; author reply 3047-50. PubMed ID: 17340672
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Nearest-Neighbor Estimation for ROC Analysis under Verification Bias.
    Adimari G; Chiogna M
    Int J Biostat; 2015 May; 11(1):109-24. PubMed ID: 25781712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Confidence intervals for predictive values with an emphasis to case-control studies.
    Mercaldo ND; Lau KF; Zhou XH
    Stat Med; 2007 May; 26(10):2170-83. PubMed ID: 16927452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bayesian estimation of intervention effect with pre- and post-misclassified binomial data.
    Stamey JD; Seaman JW; Young DM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(1):93-108. PubMed ID: 17219757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Classification in two-stage screening.
    Longford NT
    Stat Med; 2015 Nov; 34(25):3281-97. PubMed ID: 26082302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic test evaluation: a Bayesian approach.
    Buzoianu M; Kadane JB
    Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(13):2453-73. PubMed ID: 17979150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Direct estimation of volume under the ROC surface with verification bias.
    Shi S; Qin G
    J Biopharm Stat; 2024 Jul; 34(4):553-581. PubMed ID: 37470408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of imputation methods in ovarian tumor diagnostic models using generalized linear models and support vector machines.
    Dimou I; Van Calster B; Van Huffel S; Timmerman D; Zervakis M
    Med Decis Making; 2010; 30(1):123-31. PubMed ID: 19605886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.