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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21303109)

  • 1. Statistical approaches to forcefield calibration and prediction uncertainty in molecular simulation.
    Cailliez F; Pernot P
    J Chem Phys; 2011 Feb; 134(5):054124. PubMed ID: 21303109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dissolved plume attenuation with DNAPL source remediation, aqueous decay and volatilization--analytical solution, model calibration and prediction uncertainty.
    Parker JC; Park E; Tang G
    J Contam Hydrol; 2008 Nov; 102(1-2):61-71. PubMed ID: 18502537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Calibration of forcefields for molecular simulation: sequential design of computer experiments for building cost-efficient kriging metamodels.
    Cailliez F; Bourasseau A; Pernot P
    J Comput Chem; 2014 Jan; 35(2):130-49. PubMed ID: 24318648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Rational design of ion force fields based on thermodynamic solvation properties.
    Horinek D; Mamatkulov SI; Netz RR
    J Chem Phys; 2009 Mar; 130(12):124507. PubMed ID: 19334851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Bayesian calibration of force-fields from experimental data: TIP4P water.
    Dutta R; Brotzakis ZF; Mira A
    J Chem Phys; 2018 Oct; 149(15):154110. PubMed ID: 30342443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cost optimization of DNAPL source and plume remediation under uncertainty using a semi-analytic model.
    Cardiff M; Liu X; Kitanidis PK; Parker J; Kim U
    J Contam Hydrol; 2010 Apr; 113(1-4):25-43. PubMed ID: 20185203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Uncertainties in critical loads and target loads of sulphur and nitrogen for European forests: analysis and quantification.
    Reinds GJ; de Vries W
    Sci Total Environ; 2010 Mar; 408(8):1960-70. PubMed ID: 20053422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improved strategies and optimization of calibration models for real-time PCR absolute quantification.
    Sivaganesan M; Haugland RA; Chern EC; Shanks OC
    Water Res; 2010 Sep; 44(16):4726-35. PubMed ID: 20701947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of control strategies using the benchmark simulation model No1 (BSM1).
    Flores-Alsina X; Rodriguez-Roda I; Sin G; Gernaey KV
    Water Sci Technol; 2009; 59(3):491-9. PubMed ID: 19214003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Multi-criteria evaluation of wastewater treatment plant control strategies under uncertainty.
    Flores-Alsina X; Rodríguez-Roda I; Sin G; Gernaey KV
    Water Res; 2008 Nov; 42(17):4485-97. PubMed ID: 18804255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analysis of parameter uncertainty of a flow and quality stormwater model.
    Dotto CB; Deletic A; Fletcher TD
    Water Sci Technol; 2009; 60(3):717-25. PubMed ID: 19657167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Using CTS and PK-PD models to predict the effect of uncertainty about population parameters on clinical trial power].
    Zhu L; Shi X; Liu Y
    Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Feb; 26(1):42-6, 62. PubMed ID: 19334551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A modified TIP3P water potential for simulation with Ewald summation.
    Price DJ; Brooks CL
    J Chem Phys; 2004 Nov; 121(20):10096-103. PubMed ID: 15549884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The meaning of the bias uncertainty measure.
    Bartley DL
    Ann Occup Hyg; 2008 Aug; 52(6):519-25. PubMed ID: 18535088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of uncertainty about population parameters on pharmacodynamics-based prediction of clinical trial power.
    Kraiczi H; Frisén M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2005 Apr; 26(2):118-30. PubMed ID: 15837435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Systematic comparison of empirical forcefields for molecular dynamic simulation of insulin.
    Todorova N; Legge FS; Treutlein H; Yarovsky I
    J Phys Chem B; 2008 Sep; 112(35):11137-46. PubMed ID: 18698702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Including source uncertainty and prior information in the analysis of stable isotope mixing models.
    Ward EJ; Semmens BX; Schindler DE
    Environ Sci Technol; 2010 Jun; 44(12):4645-50. PubMed ID: 20496928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Impact of input data uncertainties on urban stormwater model parameters.
    Kleidorfer M; Deletic A; Fletcher TD; Rauch W
    Water Sci Technol; 2009; 60(6):1545-54. PubMed ID: 19759457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Interatomic Lennard-Jones potentials of linear and branched alkanes calibrated by Gibbs ensemble simulations for vapor-liquid equilibria.
    Chang J; Sandler SI
    J Chem Phys; 2004 Oct; 121(15):7474-83. PubMed ID: 15473822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.