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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21310854)

  • 41. Nonlinear probability weighting can reflect attentional biases in sequential sampling.
    Zilker V; Pachur T
    Psychol Rev; 2022 Oct; 129(5):949-975. PubMed ID: 34370495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Caregiver preferences for emerging duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments: a comparison of best-worst scaling and conjoint analysis.
    Hollin IL; Peay HL; Bridges JF
    Patient; 2015 Feb; 8(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 25523316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Survival or Mortality: Does Risk Attribute Framing Influence Decision-Making Behavior in a Discrete Choice Experiment?
    Veldwijk J; Essers BA; Lambooij MS; Dirksen CD; Smit HA; de Wit GA
    Value Health; 2016; 19(2):202-9. PubMed ID: 27021754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities.
    van Osch SM; Wakker PP; van den Hout WB; Stiggelbout AM
    Med Decis Making; 2004; 24(5):511-7. PubMed ID: 15359000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for new medicines in rare disease patients and caregivers.
    Morel T; Aymé S; Cassiman D; Simoens S; Morgan M; Vandebroek M
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2016 May; 11(1):70. PubMed ID: 27225337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Societal preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatments: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.
    Harrison M; Marra C; Shojania K; Bansback N
    Rheumatology (Oxford); 2015 Oct; 54(10):1816-25. PubMed ID: 25989956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores.
    Lenert LA; Sturley AP; Rapaport MH; Chavez S; Mohr PE; Rupnow M
    Schizophr Res; 2004 Nov; 71(1):155-65. PubMed ID: 15374583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Health-Related Utility Weights in a Cohort of Real-World Crohn's Disease Patients.
    Greenberg D; Schwartz D; Vardi H; Friger M; Sarid O; Slonim-Nevo V; Odes S;
    J Crohns Colitis; 2015 Dec; 9(12):1138-45. PubMed ID: 26374662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Exaggerated risk: prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice.
    Kusev P; van Schaik P; Ayton P; Dent J; Chater N
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Nov; 35(6):1487-505. PubMed ID: 19857019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. When does information about probability count in choices under risk?
    Tyszka T; Zaleskiewicz T
    Risk Anal; 2006 Dec; 26(6):1623-36. PubMed ID: 17184402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Attribute attention and option attention in risky choice.
    Zilker V; Pachur T
    Cognition; 2023 Jul; 236():105441. PubMed ID: 37058827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Harnessing the theoretical foundations of the exponential and beta-Poisson dose-response models to quantify parameter uncertainty using Markov Chain Monte Carlo.
    Schmidt PJ; Pintar KD; Fazil AM; Topp E
    Risk Anal; 2013 Sep; 33(9):1677-93. PubMed ID: 23311599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment.
    Marshall DA; Deal K; Bombard Y; Leighl N; MacDonald KV; Trudeau M
    BMJ Open; 2016 Jun; 6(6):e010981. PubMed ID: 27256091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. On the shape of the probability weighting function.
    Gonzalez R; Wu G
    Cogn Psychol; 1999 Feb; 38(1):129-66. PubMed ID: 10090801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Conditional transformation models for survivor function estimation.
    Möst L; Hothorn T
    Int J Biostat; 2015 May; 11(1):23-50. PubMed ID: 25719339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Nonlinear decision weights or moment-based preferences? A model competition involving described and experienced skewness.
    Spiliopoulos L; Hertwig R
    Cognition; 2019 Feb; 183():99-123. PubMed ID: 30447519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling.
    Hakim Z; Pathak DS
    Health Econ; 1999 Mar; 8(2):103-16. PubMed ID: 10342724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Selecting an exposure lag period.
    Salvan A; Stayner L; Steenland K; Smith R
    Epidemiology; 1995 Jul; 6(4):387-90. PubMed ID: 7548346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Part 2. Development of Enhanced Statistical Methods for Assessing Health Effects Associated with an Unknown Number of Major Sources of Multiple Air Pollutants.
    Park ES; Symanski E; Han D; Spiegelman C
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2015 Jun; (183 Pt 1-2):51-113. PubMed ID: 26333239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Feedback Influences Discriminability and Attractiveness Components of Probability Weighting in Descriptive Choice Under Risk.
    Goyal S; Miyapuram KP
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():962. PubMed ID: 31130892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.