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 *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19878329)

  • 1. Model averaging techniques for quantifying conceptual model uncertainty.
    Singh A; Mishra S; Ruskauff G
    Ground Water; 2010; 48(5):701-15. PubMed ID: 19878329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty.
    Ye M; Pohlmann KF; Chapman JB; Pohll GM; Reeves DM
    Ground Water; 2010; 48(5):716-28. PubMed ID: 19788638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of different uncertainty techniques in urban stormwater quantity and quality modelling.
    Dotto CB; Mannina G; Kleidorfer M; Vezzaro L; Henrichs M; McCarthy DT; Freni G; Rauch W; Deletic A
    Water Res; 2012 May; 46(8):2545-58. PubMed ID: 22402270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Complexity vs. simplicity: groundwater model ranking using information criteria.
    Engelhardt I; De Aguinaga JG; Mikat H; Schüth C; Liedl R
    Ground Water; 2014; 52(4):573-83. PubMed ID: 23750914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Sources of uncertainty in model predictions: lessons learned from the IAEA Forest and Fruit Working Group model intercomparisons.
    Linkov I; Burmistrov D
    J Environ Radioact; 2005; 84(2):297-314. PubMed ID: 15978707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparative uncertainty analysis of copper loads in stormwater systems using GLUE and grey-box modeling.
    Lindblom E; Madsen H; Mikkelsen PS
    Water Sci Technol; 2007; 56(6):11-8. PubMed ID: 17898439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Model uncertainty--parameter uncertainty versus conceptual models.
    Højberg AL; Refsgaard JC
    Water Sci Technol; 2005; 52(6):177-86. PubMed ID: 16304950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative performance of Bayesian and AIC-based measures of phylogenetic model uncertainty.
    Alfaro ME; Huelsenbeck JP
    Syst Biol; 2006 Feb; 55(1):89-96. PubMed ID: 16507526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bayesian ranking of sites for engineering safety improvements: decision parameter, treatability concept, statistical criterion, and spatial dependence.
    Miaou SP; Song JJ
    Accid Anal Prev; 2005 Jul; 37(4):699-720. PubMed ID: 15949462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Using a reliability process to reduce uncertainty in predicting crashes at unsignalized intersections.
    Haleem K; Abdel-Aty M; Mackie K
    Accid Anal Prev; 2010 Mar; 42(2):654-66. PubMed ID: 20159091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Predicting streamflow response to fire-induced landcover change: implications of parameter uncertainty in the MIKE SHE model.
    McMichael CE; Hope AS
    J Environ Manage; 2007 Aug; 84(3):245-56. PubMed ID: 16901617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Uncertainty in urban stormwater quality modelling: the influence of likelihood measure formulation in the GLUE methodology.
    Freni G; Mannina G; Viviani G
    Sci Total Environ; 2009 Dec; 408(1):138-45. PubMed ID: 19819524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A hierarchical Bayesian model averaging framework for groundwater prediction under uncertainty.
    Chitsazan N; Tsai FT
    Ground Water; 2015; 53(2):305-16. PubMed ID: 24890644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Model comparison for risk assessment: a case study of contaminated groundwater.
    Chen YC; Ma HW
    Chemosphere; 2006 May; 63(5):751-61. PubMed ID: 16213568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Joint propagation of variability and imprecision in assessing the risk of groundwater contamination.
    Baudrit C; Guyonnet D; Dubois D
    J Contam Hydrol; 2007 Aug; 93(1-4):72-84. PubMed ID: 17321003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Model averaging in microbial risk assessment using fractional polynomials.
    Namata H; Aerts M; Faes C; Teunis P
    Risk Anal; 2008 Aug; 28(4):891-905. PubMed ID: 18564995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Does choice in model selection affect maximum likelihood analysis?
    Ripplinger J; Sullivan J
    Syst Biol; 2008 Feb; 57(1):76-85. PubMed ID: 18275003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Potential uncertainty reduction in model-averaged benchmark dose estimates informed by an additional dose study.
    Shao K; Small MJ
    Risk Anal; 2011 Oct; 31(10):1561-75. PubMed ID: 21388425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On the effect of scaling conceptual model complexity on stochastic response for water quality modeling.
    Parker GT
    Water Sci Technol; 2011; 63(2):360-6. PubMed ID: 21252443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bayesian methodology for model uncertainty using model performance data.
    Droguett EL; Mosleh A
    Risk Anal; 2008 Oct; 28(5):1457-76. PubMed ID: 18793282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.