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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18831330)

  • 1. Do we need to examine the quantitative data obtained from toxicity studies for both normality and homogeneity of variance?
    Kobayashi K; Pillai KS; Sakuratani Y; Suzuki M; Jie W
    J Environ Biol; 2008 Jan; 29(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 18831330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Testing experimental data for univariate normality.
    Henderson AR
    Clin Chim Acta; 2006 Apr; 366(1-2):112-29. PubMed ID: 16388793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Statistical tools for analysing the data obtained from repeated dose toxicity studies with rodents: a comparison of the statistical tools used in Japan with that of used in other countries.
    Kobayashi K; Pillai KS; Guhatakurta S; Cherian KM; Ohnishi M
    J Environ Biol; 2011 Jan; 32(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 21888225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. More about the basic assumptions of t-test: normality and sample size.
    Kim TK; Park JH
    Korean J Anesthesiol; 2019 Aug; 72(4):331-335. PubMed ID: 30929413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Handling nonnormality and variance heterogeneity for quantitative sublethal toxicity tests.
    Ritz C; Van der Vliet L
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2009 Sep; 28(9):2009-17. PubMed ID: 19364187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sensitivity and specificity of normality tests and consequences on reference interval accuracy at small sample size: a computer-simulation study.
    Le Boedec K
    Vet Clin Pathol; 2016 Dec; 45(4):648-656. PubMed ID: 27556235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A simple and effective decision rule for choosing a significance test to protect against non-normality.
    Zimmerman DW
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2011 Nov; 64(3):388-409. PubMed ID: 21973093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preliminary testing for normality: some statistical aspects of a common concept.
    Schoder V; Himmelmann A; Wilhelm KP
    Clin Exp Dermatol; 2006 Nov; 31(6):757-61. PubMed ID: 17040259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fundamentals of Research Data and Variables: The Devil Is in the Details.
    Vetter TR
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Oct; 125(4):1375-1380. PubMed ID: 28787341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A new efficient statistical test for detecting variability in the gene expression data.
    Mathur S; Dolo S
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Aug; 17(4):405-19. PubMed ID: 17698928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A closer look at the effect of preliminary goodness-of-fit testing for normality for the one-sample t-test.
    Rochon J; Kieser M
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2011 Nov; 64(3):410-26. PubMed ID: 21973094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. To test or not to test: Preliminary assessment of normality when comparing two independent samples.
    Rochon J; Gondan M; Kieser M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 Jun; 12():81. PubMed ID: 22712852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of quantitative data obtained from toxicity studies showing non-normal distribution.
    Kobayashi K
    J Toxicol Sci; 2005 May; 30(2):127-34. PubMed ID: 15928460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Estimating departure from normality.
    Royston P
    Stat Med; 1991 Aug; 10(8):1283-93. PubMed ID: 1925159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Omnibus test for normality based on the Edgeworth expansion.
    Wyłomańska A; Iskander DR; Burnecki K
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(6):e0233901. PubMed ID: 32525893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing the Performance of Approaches for Testing the Homogeneity of Variance Assumption in One-Factor ANOVA Models.
    Wang Y; Rodríguez de Gil P; Chen YH; Kromrey JD; Kim ES; Pham T; Nguyen D; Romano JL
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2017 Apr; 77(2):305-329. PubMed ID: 29795915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data.
    Mishra P; Pandey CM; Singh U; Gupta A; Sahu C; Keshri A
    Ann Card Anaesth; 2019; 22(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 30648682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Making the right conclusions based on wrong results and small sample sizes: interpretation of statistical tests in ecotoxicology.
    Wang M; Riffel M
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2011 May; 74(4):684-92. PubMed ID: 21035855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The impact of sample non-normality on ANOVA and alternative methods.
    Lantz B
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2013 May; 66(2):224-44. PubMed ID: 22624658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cauchy combination omnibus test for normality.
    Meng Z; Jiang Z
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(8):e0289498. PubMed ID: 37535617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.