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 *

275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20716010)

  • 1. Statistical methods for assessment of added usefulness of new biomarkers.
    Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB; Vasan RS
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2010 Dec; 48(12):1703-11. PubMed ID: 20716010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers.
    Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB; Steyerberg EW
    Stat Med; 2011 Jan; 30(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 21204120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Graphical assessment of incremental value of novel markers in prediction models: From statistical to decision analytical perspectives.
    Steyerberg EW; Vedder MM; Leening MJ; Postmus D; D'Agostino RB; Van Calster B; Pencina MJ
    Biom J; 2015 Jul; 57(4):556-70. PubMed ID: 25042996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Interpreting incremental value of markers added to risk prediction models.
    Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB; Pencina KM; Janssens AC; Greenland P
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Sep; 176(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 22875755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.
    Steyerberg EW; Vickers AJ; Cook NR; Gerds T; Gonen M; Obuchowski N; Pencina MJ; Kattan MW
    Epidemiology; 2010 Jan; 21(1):128-38. PubMed ID: 20010215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.
    Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB; D'Agostino RB; Vasan RS
    Stat Med; 2008 Jan; 27(2):157-72; discussion 207-12. PubMed ID: 17569110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measures for evaluation of prognostic improvement under multivariate normality for nested and nonnested models.
    Enserro DM; Demler OV; Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(20):3817-3831. PubMed ID: 31211443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician's guide.
    Leening MJ; Vedder MM; Witteman JC; Pencina MJ; Steyerberg EW
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Jan; 160(2):122-31. PubMed ID: 24592497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Discriminative ability, reclassification and net benefit: the predictive value of biomarkers].
    Steyerberg EW; Pencina MJ; Van Calster B
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2012; 156(41):A5029. PubMed ID: 23062255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the incremental predictive performance of novel biomarkers over standard predictors.
    Xanthakis V; Sullivan LM; Vasan RS; Benjamin EJ; Massaro JM; D'Agostino RB; Pencina MJ
    Stat Med; 2014 Jul; 33(15):2577-84. PubMed ID: 24719270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Net Reclassification Index (NRI): a Misleading Measure of Prediction Improvement Even with Independent Test Data Sets.
    Pepe MS; Fan J; Feng Z; Gerds T; Hilden J
    Stat Biosci; 2015 Oct; 7(2):282-295. PubMed ID: 26504496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. What to expect from net reclassification improvement with three categories.
    Pencina KM; Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 2014 Dec; 33(28):4975-87. PubMed ID: 25176621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Improvement Screening for Ultra-High Dimensional Data with Censored Survival Outcomes and Varying Coefficients.
    Yue M; Li J
    Int J Biostat; 2017 May; 13(1):. PubMed ID: 28541925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models.
    Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB; Demler OV
    Stat Med; 2012 Jan; 31(2):101-13. PubMed ID: 22147389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Nontraditional Risk Factors in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
    Lin JS; Evans CV; Johnson E; Redmond N; Coppola EL; Smith N
    JAMA; 2018 Jul; 320(3):281-297. PubMed ID: 29998301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The potential of genes and other markers to inform about risk.
    Pepe MS; Gu JW; Morris DE
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2010 Mar; 19(3):655-65. PubMed ID: 20160267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Statistical evaluation of adding multiple risk factors improves Framingham stroke risk score.
    Zhou XH; Wang X; Duncan A; Hu G; Zheng J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):58. PubMed ID: 28410581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Head-to-head comparison of 2 myocardial fibrosis biomarkers for long-term heart failure risk stratification: ST2 versus galectin-3.
    Bayes-Genis A; de Antonio M; Vila J; Peñafiel J; Galán A; Barallat J; Zamora E; Urrutia A; Lupón J
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2014 Jan; 63(2):158-66. PubMed ID: 24076531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.