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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19822693)

  • 1. Sample size recalculation in sequential diagnostic trials.
    Tang LL; Liu A
    Biostatistics; 2010 Jan; 11(1):151-63. PubMed ID: 19822693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of confidence/credible interval methods for the area under the ROC curve for continuous diagnostic tests with small sample size.
    Feng D; Cortese G; Baumgartner R
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2603-2621. PubMed ID: 26323286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Tests of equivalence and non-inferiority for diagnostic accuracy based on the paired areas under ROC curves.
    Liu JP; Ma MC; Wu CY; Tai JY
    Stat Med; 2006 Apr; 25(7):1219-38. PubMed ID: 16158400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Group sequential design for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Mazumdar M; Liu A
    Stat Med; 2003 Mar; 22(5):727-39. PubMed ID: 12587102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Many-to-one comparison after sample size reestimation for trials with multiple treatment arms and treatment selection.
    Wang J
    J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Sep; 20(5):927-40. PubMed ID: 20721782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response.
    McCray GPJ; Titman AC; Ghaneh P; Lancaster GA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):102. PubMed ID: 28705147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An adaptive approach to designing comparative diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Wu C; Liu A; Yu KF
    J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(1):116-25. PubMed ID: 18161544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sample size recalculation in multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials based on noncomparative data.
    Harden M; Friede T
    Biom J; 2020 Sep; 62(5):1284-1299. PubMed ID: 32128868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising.
    Chen YH; DeMets DL; Lan KK
    Stat Med; 2004 Apr; 23(7):1023-38. PubMed ID: 15057876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Simultaneous inference for factorial multireader diagnostic trials.
    Konietschke F; Aguayo RR; Staab W
    Stat Med; 2018 Jan; 37(1):28-47. PubMed ID: 28980323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A group sequential, response-adaptive design for randomized clinical trials.
    Karrison TG; Huo D; Chappell R
    Control Clin Trials; 2003 Oct; 24(5):506-22. PubMed ID: 14500050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Estimation of ROC curve with complex survey data.
    Yao W; Li Z; Graubard BI
    Stat Med; 2015 Apr; 34(8):1293-303. PubMed ID: 25546290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sample size calculations for ROC studies: parametric robustness and Bayesian nonparametrics.
    Cheng D; Branscum AJ; Johnson WO
    Stat Med; 2012 Jan; 31(2):131-42. PubMed ID: 22139729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sample size recalculation based on the prevalence in a randomized test-treatment study.
    Hot A; Benda N; Bossuyt PM; Gerke O; Vach W; Zapf A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jul; 22(1):205. PubMed ID: 35879675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Bootstrap-based procedures for inference in nonparametric receiver-operating characteristic curve regression analysis.
    Rodríguez-Álvarez MX; Roca-Pardiñas J; Cadarso-Suárez C; Tahoces PG
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):740-764. PubMed ID: 29233083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sample size determination for equivalence test using rate ratio of sensitivity and specificity in paired sample data.
    Lui KJ; Cumberland WG
    Control Clin Trials; 2001 Aug; 22(4):373-89. PubMed ID: 11514039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
    Brookes ST; Whitley E; Peters TJ; Mulheran PA; Egger M; Davey Smith G
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(33):1-56. PubMed ID: 11701102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A simulation study for comparing testing statistics in response-adaptive randomization.
    Gu X; Lee JJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Jun; 10():48. PubMed ID: 20525382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Testing for qualitative interactions between stages in an adaptive study.
    Parker RA
    Stat Med; 2010 Jan; 29(2):210-8. PubMed ID: 19908261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Combining dependent tests to compare the diagnostic accuracies--a non-parametric approach.
    Yang Y; Jin Z
    Stat Med; 2006 Apr; 25(7):1239-50. PubMed ID: 16158406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.