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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18808395)

  • 21. Exact confidence limits for prevalence of a disease with an imperfect diagnostic test.
    Reiczigel J; Földi J; Ozsvári L
    Epidemiol Infect; 2010 Nov; 138(11):1674-8. PubMed ID: 20196903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Current modeling practice may lead to falsely high benchmark dose estimates.
    Ringblom J; Johanson G; Öberg M
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2014 Jul; 69(2):171-7. PubMed ID: 24662478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. On the correction of the asymptotic distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic if nuisance parameters are estimated based on an external source.
    Jonker M; Van der Vaart A
    Int J Biostat; 2014; 10(2):123-42. PubMed ID: 24837490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. MCMC estimation for the p(2) network regression model with crossed random effects.
    Zijlstra BJ; van Duijn MA; Snijders TA
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):143-66. PubMed ID: 19208289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections.
    Noma H
    Stat Med; 2011 Dec; 30(28):3304-12. PubMed ID: 21964669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A Web-Based System for Bayesian Benchmark Dose Estimation.
    Shao K; Shapiro AJ
    Environ Health Perspect; 2018 Jan; 126(1):017002. PubMed ID: 29329100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Two confidence interval approaches on the dependability coefficient in a two-factor crossed design.
    Ting N; Cappelleri JC; Bushmakin AG
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Jul; 19(4):610-24. PubMed ID: 20183429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Recovery of weak factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis under conditions of model misspecification.
    Ximénez C
    Behav Res Methods; 2009 Nov; 41(4):1038-52. PubMed ID: 19897812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Revisiting tests for neglected nonlinearity using artificial neural networks.
    Cho JS; Ishida I; White H
    Neural Comput; 2011 May; 23(5):1133-86. PubMed ID: 21299425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Confounder-adjusted estimates of the risk difference using propensity score-based weighting.
    Ukoumunne OC; Williamson E; Forbes AB; Gulliford MC; Carlin JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3126-36. PubMed ID: 21170907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Benchmark Dose Analysis via Nonparametric Regression Modeling.
    Piegorsch WW; Xiong H; Bhattacharya RN; Lin L
    Risk Anal; 2014 Jan; 34(1):135-51. PubMed ID: 23683057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A bootstrap test for comparing two variances: simulation of size and power in small samples.
    Sun J; Chernick MR; LaBudde RA
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Nov; 21(6):1079-93. PubMed ID: 22023677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Ethyl methanesulfonate toxicity in Viracept--a comprehensive human risk assessment based on threshold data for genotoxicity.
    Müller L; Gocke E; Lavé T; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):317-29. PubMed ID: 19443141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Benchmark dose estimation incorporating multiple data sources.
    Wheeler MW; Bailer AJ
    Risk Anal; 2009 Feb; 29(2):249-56. PubMed ID: 19000080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Oracle estimation of parametric models under boundary constraints.
    Wong KY; Goldberg Y; Fine JP
    Biometrics; 2016 Dec; 72(4):1173-1183. PubMed ID: 27060984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Quantitative methods of cancer risk assessment in exposure to chemicals].
    Szymczak W
    Med Pr; 2009; 60(3):215-21. PubMed ID: 19746890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A geometric confidence ellipse approach to the estimation of the ratio of two variables.
    Walter SD; Gafni A; Birch S
    Stat Med; 2008 Dec; 27(28):5956-74. PubMed ID: 18720350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Is the assumption of normality or log-normality for continuous response data critical for benchmark dose estimation?
    Shao K; Gift JS; Setzer RW
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2013 Nov; 272(3):767-79. PubMed ID: 23954464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Bayesian adjustment for covariate measurement errors: a flexible parametric approach.
    Hossain S; Gustafson P
    Stat Med; 2009 May; 28(11):1580-600. PubMed ID: 19226564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Stochasticity in physiologically based kinetics models: implications for cancer risk assessment.
    Péry AR; Bois FY
    Risk Anal; 2009 Aug; 29(8):1182-91. PubMed ID: 19508449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.