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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20064254)

  • 41. Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards.
    Hui SL; Zhou XH
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1998 Dec; 7(4):354-70. PubMed ID: 9871952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Empirical assessment of bias in machine learning diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Crowley RJ; Tan YJ; Ioannidis JPA
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2020 Jul; 27(7):1092-1101. PubMed ID: 32548642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.
    MacLehose RR; Reeves BC; Harvey IM; Sheldon TA; Russell IT; Black AM
    Health Technol Assess; 2000; 4(34):1-154. PubMed ID: 11134917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Effect of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic or screening test accuracy when the reference standard is imperfect.
    Walter SD; Macaskill P; Lord SJ; Irwig L
    Stat Med; 2012 May; 31(11-12):1129-38. PubMed ID: 22351623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. [Implication of inverse-probability weighting method in the evaluation of diagnostic test with verification bias].
    Kang L; Zhang S; Zhao F; Qiao Y
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2014 Mar; 35(3):329-32. PubMed ID: 24831638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Non-contact tests for identifying people at risk of primary angle closure glaucoma.
    Jindal A; Ctori I; Virgili G; Lucenteforte E; Lawrenson JG
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2020 May; 5(5):CD012947. PubMed ID: 32468576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. An interactive web-based tool for detecting verification (work-up) bias in studies of the efficacy of diagnostic imaging.
    Richardson ML; Petscavage JM
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Dec; 17(12):1580-3. PubMed ID: 20926316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Accounting for nonignorable verification bias in assessment of diagnostic tests.
    Kosinski AS; Barnhart HX
    Biometrics; 2003 Mar; 59(1):163-71. PubMed ID: 12762453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often?
    Frank RA; Sharifabadi AD; Salameh JP; McGrath TA; Kraaijpoel N; Dang W; Li N; Gauthier ID; Wu MZ; Bossuyt PM; Levine D; McInnes MDF
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Apr; 29(4):1657-1664. PubMed ID: 30443756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review.
    Whiting P; Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Glas AS; Bossuyt PM; Kleijnen J
    Ann Intern Med; 2004 Feb; 140(3):189-202. PubMed ID: 14757617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis.
    Zifodya JS; Kreniske JS; Schiller I; Kohli M; Dendukuri N; Schumacher SG; Ochodo EA; Haraka F; Zwerling AA; Pai M; Steingart KR; Horne DJ
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2021 Feb; 2():CD009593. PubMed ID: 33616229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection.
    Obuchowski NA; Mazzone PJ; Dachman AH
    Eur Radiol; 2010 Mar; 20(3):584-94. PubMed ID: 19763582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests.
    Alonzo TA
    Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):403-17. PubMed ID: 15543634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Correcting for partial verification bias in diagnostic accuracy studies: A tutorial using R.
    Arifin WN; Yusof UK
    Stat Med; 2022 Apr; 41(9):1709-1727. PubMed ID: 35043447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Conditional bias of point estimates following a group sequential test.
    Fan XF; DeMets DL; Lan KK
    J Biopharm Stat; 2004 May; 14(2):505-30. PubMed ID: 15206542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Fuzzy gold standards: Approaches to handling an imperfect reference standard.
    Walsh T
    J Dent; 2018 Jul; 74 Suppl 1():S47-S49. PubMed ID: 29929589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard.
    Karch A; Koch A; Zapf A; Zerr I; Karch A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Oct; 78():73-82. PubMed ID: 27107877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. ROC curve estimation when covariates affect the verification process.
    Rodenberg C; Zhou XH
    Biometrics; 2000 Dec; 56(4):1256-62. PubMed ID: 11129488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.
    Chubak J; Burnett-Hartman AN; Barlow WE; Corley DA; Croswell JM; Neslund-Dudas C; Vachani A; Silver MI; Tiro JA; Kamineni A
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2022 Aug; 31(8):1517-1520. PubMed ID: 35916602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.