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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18179352)

  • 1. Bootstrapping to test for nonzero population correlation coefficients using univariate sampling.
    Beasley WH; DeShea L; Toothaker LE; Mendoza JL; Bard DE; Rodgers JL
    Psychol Methods; 2007 Dec; 12(4):414-433. PubMed ID: 18179352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Skew and internal consistency.
    Greer T; Dunlap WP; Hunter ST; Berman ME
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 Nov; 91(6):1351-8. PubMed ID: 17100489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Monte Carlo investigation of the Fisher Z transformation for normal and nonnormal distributions.
    Berry KJ; Mielke PW
    Psychol Rep; 2000 Dec; 87(3 Pt 2):1101-14. PubMed ID: 11272750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bootstrap scree tests: a Monte Carlo simulation and applications to published data.
    Hong S; Mitchell SK; Harshman RA
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2006 May; 59(Pt 1):35-57. PubMed ID: 16709278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The correction for attenuation due to measurement error: clarifying concepts and creating confidence sets.
    Charles EP
    Psychol Methods; 2005 Jun; 10(2):206-26. PubMed ID: 15998178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the correlation corrected for range restriction: a simulation study.
    Chan W; Chan DW
    Psychol Methods; 2004 Sep; 9(3):369-85. PubMed ID: 15355154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations.
    Shrout PE; Bolger N
    Psychol Methods; 2002 Dec; 7(4):422-45. PubMed ID: 12530702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Coefficient of variation calculated from the range for skewed distributions.
    Rhiel GS
    Psychol Rep; 2006 Feb; 98(1):72-8. PubMed ID: 16673953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Determining the statistical significance of relative weights.
    Tonidandel S; Lebreton JM; Johnson JW
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Dec; 14(4):387-99. PubMed ID: 19968399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Determining the number of clusters by sampling with replacement.
    Tonidandel S; Overall JE
    Psychol Methods; 2004 Jun; 9(2):238-49. PubMed ID: 15137891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared.
    Nixon RM; Wonderling D; Grieve RD
    Health Econ; 2010 Mar; 19(3):316-33. PubMed ID: 19378353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence.
    Alfaro ME; Zoller S; Lutzoni F
    Mol Biol Evol; 2003 Feb; 20(2):255-66. PubMed ID: 12598693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches.
    Bishara AJ; Hittner JB
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):399-417. PubMed ID: 22563845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A conceptual and empirical examination of justifications for dichotomization.
    DeCoster J; Iselin AM; Gallucci M
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Dec; 14(4):349-66. PubMed ID: 19968397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Parametric and nonparametric population methods: their comparative performance in analysing a clinical dataset and two Monte Carlo simulation studies.
    Bustad A; Terziivanov D; Leary R; Port R; Schumitzky A; Jelliffe R
    Clin Pharmacokinet; 2006; 45(4):365-83. PubMed ID: 16584284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Monte Carlo evaluation of tests for comparing dependent correlations.
    Hittner JB; May K; Silver NC
    J Gen Psychol; 2003 Apr; 130(2):149-68. PubMed ID: 12773018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis with selection of variables.
    Snapinn SM; Knoke JD
    Biometrics; 1989 Mar; 45(1):289-99. PubMed ID: 2720056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of the extreme groups approach: a critical reexamination and new recommendations.
    Preacher KJ; Rucker DD; MacCallum RC; Nicewander WA
    Psychol Methods; 2005 Jun; 10(2):178-92. PubMed ID: 15998176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Type I errors and power of the parametric bootstrap goodness-of-fit test: full and limited information.
    Tollenaar N; Mooijaart A
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2003 Nov; 56(Pt 2):271-88. PubMed ID: 14633336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the correlations corrected for indirect range restriction.
    Li JC; Chan W; Cui Y
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2011 Nov; 64(3):367-87. PubMed ID: 21973092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.