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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21688881)

  • 1. Using Lancaster's mid-P correction to the Fisher's exact test for adverse impact analyses.
    Biddle DA; Morris SB
    J Appl Psychol; 2011 Sep; 96(5):956-65. PubMed ID: 21688881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Power for detecting genetic divergence: differences between statistical methods and marker loci.
    Ryman N; Palm S; André C; Carvalho GR; Dahlgren TG; Jorde PE; Laikre L; Larsson LC; Palmé A; Ruzzante DE
    Mol Ecol; 2006 Jul; 15(8):2031-45. PubMed ID: 16780422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Testing for adverse impact when sample size is small.
    Collins MW; Morris SB
    J Appl Psychol; 2008 Mar; 93(2):463-71. PubMed ID: 18361646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Design of adaptive two-stage double-arm clinical trials for dichotomous variables.
    Jiang Z; Xue F; Li C; Wang L; Cai H; Zhang C; Xia J
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 May; 31(3):242-50. PubMed ID: 20172053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A note on the power of Fisher's least significant difference procedure.
    Meier U
    Pharm Stat; 2006; 5(4):253-63. PubMed ID: 17128424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Testing the non-unity of rate ratio under inverse sampling.
    Tang ML; Liao YJ; Ng HK; Chan PS
    Biom J; 2007 Aug; 49(4):551-64. PubMed ID: 17621387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Detecting a lack of association: an equivalence testing approach.
    Goertzen JR; Cribbie RA
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2010 Nov; 63(Pt 3):527-37. PubMed ID: 20030968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Group sequential t-test for clinical trials with small sample sizes across stages.
    Shao J; Feng H
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Sep; 28(5):563-71. PubMed ID: 17434814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Optimally weighted Z-test is a powerful method for combining probabilities in meta-analysis.
    Zaykin DV
    J Evol Biol; 2011 Aug; 24(8):1836-41. PubMed ID: 21605215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Recommended tests for association in 2 x 2 tables.
    Lydersen S; Fagerland MW; Laake P
    Stat Med; 2009 Mar; 28(7):1159-75. PubMed ID: 19170020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary binary endpoints.
    Sozu T; Sugimoto T; Hamasaki T
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(21):2169-79. PubMed ID: 20687162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sample size determination for assessing equivalence based on proportion ratio under a randomized trial with non-compliance and missing outcomes.
    Lui KJ; Chang KC
    Stat Med; 2008 Jan; 27(1):47-67. PubMed ID: 17708514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Homogeneity test of rate ratios in stratified matched-pair studies.
    Li HQ; Tang NS
    Biom J; 2011 Jul; 53(4):614-27. PubMed ID: 21608010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Power comparison of two-sided exact tests for association in 2 x 2 contingency tables using standard, mid p and randomized test versions.
    Lydersen S; Laake P
    Stat Med; 2003 Dec; 22(24):3859-71. PubMed ID: 14673943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Hypothesis tests for population heterogeneity in meta-analysis.
    Viechtbauer W
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2007 May; 60(Pt 1):29-60. PubMed ID: 17535578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A general approach for sample size and statistical power calculations assessing of interventions using a mixture model in the presence of detection limits.
    Nie L; Chu H; Cole SR
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2006 Oct; 27(5):483-91. PubMed ID: 16769254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A robust approach for analyzing unbalanced factorial designs with fixed levels.
    Vallejo G; Ato M; Fernández MP
    Behav Res Methods; 2010 May; 42(2):607-17. PubMed ID: 20479192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing two independent incidence rates using conditional and unconditional exact tests.
    Han C
    Pharm Stat; 2008; 7(3):195-201. PubMed ID: 17506083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches.
    Bishara AJ; Hittner JB
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):399-417. PubMed ID: 22563845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Monte Carlo evaluation of tests for comparing dependent correlations.
    Hittner JB; May K; Silver NC
    J Gen Psychol; 2003 Apr; 130(2):149-68. PubMed ID: 12773018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.