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 *

206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17066378)

  • 1. Biased odds ratios from dichotomization of age.
    Chen H; Cohen P; Chen S
    Stat Med; 2007 Aug; 26(18):3487-97. PubMed ID: 17066378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Odds ratios for a continuous outcome variable without dichotomizing.
    Moser BK; Coombs LP
    Stat Med; 2004 Jun; 23(12):1843-60. PubMed ID: 15195319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Epidemiologic studies: pitfalls in interpretation.
    Westhoff CL
    Dialogues Contracept; 1995; 4(5):5-6, 8. PubMed ID: 12288680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Simple formulas for gauging the potential impacts of population stratification bias.
    Lee WC; Wang LY
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Jan; 167(1):86-9. PubMed ID: 17881384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution on respiratory and cardiovascular mortality in the Netherlands: the NLCS-AIR study.
    Brunekreef B; Beelen R; Hoek G; Schouten L; Bausch-Goldbohm S; Fischer P; Armstrong B; Hughes E; Jerrett M; van den Brandt P
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2009 Mar; (139):5-71; discussion 73-89. PubMed ID: 19554969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Using generalized additive models to reduce residual confounding.
    Benedetti A; Abrahamowicz M
    Stat Med; 2004 Dec; 23(24):3781-801. PubMed ID: 15580601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Bias formulas for external adjustment and sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounders.
    Arah OA; Chiba Y; Greenland S
    Ann Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 18(8):637-46. PubMed ID: 18652982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies.
    Groenwold RH; Hak E; Hoes AW
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jan; 62(1):22-8. PubMed ID: 18619797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Normand SL; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):754-68. PubMed ID: 16783757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Inflation of the type I error rate when a continuous confounding variable is categorized in logistic regression analyses.
    Austin PC; Brunner LJ
    Stat Med; 2004 Apr; 23(7):1159-78. PubMed ID: 15057884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The relative merits of risk ratios and odds ratios.
    Cummings P
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2009 May; 163(5):438-45. PubMed ID: 19414690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Use of conditional and marginal odds-ratios for analysing familial aggregation of binary data.
    FitzGerald PE; Knuiman MW
    Genet Epidemiol; 2000 Mar; 18(3):193-202. PubMed ID: 10723105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A note on dichotomization of continuous response variable in the presence of contamination and model misspecification.
    Shentu Y; Xie M
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(21):2200-14. PubMed ID: 20812301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations.
    Ioannidis JP
    Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 168(4):374-83; discussion 384-90. PubMed ID: 18611956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Confounding of indirect effects: a sensitivity analysis exploring the range of bias due to a cause common to both the mediator and the outcome.
    Hafeman DM
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Sep; 174(6):710-7. PubMed ID: 21652602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quantification of bias in direct effects estimates due to different types of measurement error in the mediator.
    le Cessie S; Debeij J; Rosendaal FR; Cannegieter SC; Vandenbroucke JP
    Epidemiology; 2012 Jul; 23(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 22526092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Instrumental variables: application and limitations.
    Martens EP; Pestman WR; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Klungel OH
    Epidemiology; 2006 May; 17(3):260-7. PubMed ID: 16617274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Oral contraceptives and the risk of myocardial infarction.
    Kahlenborn C
    N Engl J Med; 2002 Jun; 346(23):1826-9; author reply 1826-9. PubMed ID: 12051264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Adjusting for selection bias in retrospective, case-control studies.
    Geneletti S; Richardson S; Best N
    Biostatistics; 2009 Jan; 10(1):17-31. PubMed ID: 18482997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.