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.
167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19843888)
21. Clinical Prediction Model and Tool for Assessing Risk of Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery. Meretoja TJ; Andersen KG; Bruce J; Haasio L; Sipilä R; Scott NW; Ripatti S; Kehlet H; Kalso E J Clin Oncol; 2017 May; 35(15):1660-1667. PubMed ID: 28524782 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Using the weighted area under the net benefit curve for decision curve analysis. Talluri R; Shete S BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2016 Jul; 16():94. PubMed ID: 27431531 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Random-effects meta-analysis of the clinical utility of tests and prediction models. Wynants L; Riley RD; Timmerman D; Van Calster B Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(12):2034-2052. PubMed ID: 29575170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction. Baker SG; Cook NR; Vickers A; Kramer BS J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc; 2009 Oct; 172(4):729-748. PubMed ID: 20069131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Developing a clinical utility framework to evaluate prediction models in radiogenomics. Wu Y; Liu J; Del Rio AM; Page DC; Alagoz O; Peissig P; Onitilo AA; Burnside ES Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2015 Feb; 9416():. PubMed ID: 27095854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Vickers AJ; Elkin EB Med Decis Making; 2006; 26(6):565-74. PubMed ID: 17099194 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. An enhancement of ROC curves made them clinically relevant for diagnostic-test comparison and optimal-threshold determination. Subtil F; Rabilloud M J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jul; 68(7):752-9. PubMed ID: 25660050 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Deriving the expected utility of a predictive model when the utilities are uncertain. Cooper GF; Visweswaran S AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2005; 2005():161-5. PubMed ID: 16779022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Personalized Decision Making in Early Stage Breast Cancer: Applying Clinical Prediction Models for Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity and Breast Cancer Mortality Demonstrates Substantial Heterogeneity of Benefit-Harm Trade-off. Upshaw JN; Ruthazer R; Miller KD; Parsons SK; Erban JK; O'Neill AM; Demissei B; Sledge G; Wagner L; Ky B; Kent DM Clin Breast Cancer; 2019 Aug; 19(4):259-267.e1. PubMed ID: 31175052 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Breast Density and Benign Breast Disease: Risk Assessment to Identify Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer. Tice JA; Miglioretti DL; Li CS; Vachon CM; Gard CC; Kerlikowske K J Clin Oncol; 2015 Oct; 33(28):3137-43. PubMed ID: 26282663 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Assessing the Clinical Impact of Risk Models for Opting Out of Treatment. Kerr KF; Brown MD; Marsh TL; Janes H Med Decis Making; 2019 Feb; 39(2):86-90. PubMed ID: 30649998 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 30-day risk prediction after coronary angioplasty: first step in decision making. Lemos PA Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2009 Sep; 74(3):386. PubMed ID: 19681113 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. An integrated breast cancer risk assessment and management model based on fuzzy cognitive maps. Subramanian J; Karmegam A; Papageorgiou E; Papandrianos N; Vasukie A Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2015 Mar; 118(3):280-97. PubMed ID: 25697987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review. Aladwani M; Lophatananon A; Ollier W; Muir K BMJ Open; 2020 Jul; 10(7):e034661. PubMed ID: 32690501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Predicting risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women by hormone receptor status. Chlebowski RT; Anderson GL; Lane DS; Aragaki AK; Rohan T; Yasmeen S; Sarto G; Rosenberg CA; Hubbell FA; J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Nov; 99(22):1695-705. PubMed ID: 18000216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effect of changing breast cancer incidence rates on the calibration of the Gail model. Schonfeld SJ; Pee D; Greenlee RT; Hartge P; Lacey JV; Park Y; Schatzkin A; Visvanathan K; Pfeiffer RM J Clin Oncol; 2010 May; 28(14):2411-7. PubMed ID: 20368565 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Validation of two risk-prediction models for recurrent falls in the first year after stroke: a prospective cohort study. Walsh ME; Galvin R; Boland F; Williams D; Harbison JA; Murphy S; Collins R; Crowe M; McCabe DJH; Horgan F Age Ageing; 2017 Jul; 46(4):642-648. PubMed ID: 28104593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy. Williams C; Brunskill S; Altman D; Briggs A; Campbell H; Clarke M; Glanville J; Gray A; Harris A; Johnston K; Lodge M Health Technol Assess; 2006 Sep; 10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. PubMed ID: 16959170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluating the effect of multiple genetic risk score models on colorectal cancer risk prediction. Xin J; Chu H; Ben S; Ge Y; Shao W; Zhao Y; Wei Y; Ma G; Li S; Gu D; Zhang Z; Du M; Wang M Gene; 2018 Oct; 673():174-180. PubMed ID: 29908285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth. Roobol MJ; Verbeek JFM; van der Kwast T; Kümmerlin IP; Kweldam CF; van Leenders GJLH Eur Urol; 2017 Jul; 72(1):45-51. PubMed ID: 28162815 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]