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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17426422)

  • 1. [A review of power and sample size estimation in genomewide association studies].
    Park AK; Kim H
    J Prev Med Public Health; 2007 Mar; 40(2):114-21. PubMed ID: 17426422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. On Sample Size and Power Calculation for Variant Set-Based Association Tests.
    Wu B; Pankow JS
    Ann Hum Genet; 2016 Mar; 80(2):136-43. PubMed ID: 26831402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Including sampling and phenotyping costs into the optimization of two stage designs for genomewide association studies.
    Müller HH; Pahl R; Schäfer H
    Genet Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 31(8):844-52. PubMed ID: 17549751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optimal robust two-stage designs for genome-wide association studies.
    Nguyen TT; Pahl R; Schäfer H
    Ann Hum Genet; 2009 Nov; 73(Pt 6):638-51. PubMed ID: 19839987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Exact Power and Sample Size Calculations for the Two One-Sided Tests of Equivalence.
    Shieh G
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(9):e0162093. PubMed ID: 27598468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. When a case is not a case: effects of phenotype misclassification on power and sample size requirements for the transmission disequilibrium test with affected child trios.
    Buyske S; Yang G; Matise TC; Gordon D
    Hum Hered; 2009; 67(4):287-92. PubMed ID: 19172087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimum two-stage designs in case-control association studies using false discovery rate.
    Kuchiba A; Tanaka NY; Ohashi Y
    J Hum Genet; 2006; 51(12):1046-1054. PubMed ID: 17003959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sample size planning for complex study designs: A tutorial for the mlpwr package.
    Zimmer F; Henninger M; Debelak R
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Aug; 56(5):5246-5263. PubMed ID: 38030925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sample size and statistical power calculation in genetic association studies.
    Hong EP; Park JW
    Genomics Inform; 2012 Jun; 10(2):117-22. PubMed ID: 23105939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimal adaptive group sequential design with flexible timing of sample size determination.
    Cui L; Zhang L; Yang B
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2017 Dec; 63():8-12. PubMed ID: 28455234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sample-size properties of a case-control association analysis of multistage SNP studies for identifying disease susceptibility genes.
    Kitamura N; Akazawa K; Toyabe SI; Miyashita A; Kuwano R; Nakamura J
    J Hum Genet; 2008; 53(5):390-400. PubMed ID: 18288444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Haplin power analysis: a software module for power and sample size calculations in genetic association analyses of family triads and unrelated controls.
    Gjerdevik M; Jugessur A; Haaland ØA; Romanowska J; Lie RT; Cordell HJ; Gjessing HK
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Apr; 20(1):165. PubMed ID: 30940094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Detailed analysis of the relative power of direct and indirect association studies and the implications for their interpretation.
    Moskvina V; O'Donovan MC
    Hum Hered; 2007; 64(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 17483598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Designing a GWAS: power, sample size, and data structure.
    Ball RD
    Methods Mol Biol; 2013; 1019():37-98. PubMed ID: 23756887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimation of sample size and testing power (part 5).
    Hu LP; Bao XL; Guan X; Zhou SG
    Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao; 2012 Feb; 10(2):154-9. PubMed ID: 22313882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sample size and power calculations for medical studies by simulation when closed form expressions are not available.
    Landau S; Stahl D
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2013 Jun; 22(3):324-45. PubMed ID: 22491174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Some optimal and non-optimal two-stage designs using an alpha-spending function.
    Patel HI
    Stat Med; 1996 Aug; 15(16):1739-45. PubMed ID: 8870156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The power of genome-wide association studies of complex disease genes: statistical limitations of indirect approaches using SNP markers.
    Ohashi J; Tokunaga K
    J Hum Genet; 2001; 46(8):478-82. PubMed ID: 11501946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Empirical genomewide significance levels established by whole genome simulations.
    Sawcer S; Jones HB; Judge D; Visser F; Compston A; Goodfellow PN; Clayton D
    Genet Epidemiol; 1997; 14(3):223-9. PubMed ID: 9181352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantifying the percent increase in minimum sample size for SNP genotyping errors in genetic model-based association studies.
    Kang SJ; Finch SJ; Haynes C; Gordon D
    Hum Hered; 2004; 58(3-4):139-44. PubMed ID: 15812170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.