187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21856264)
21. Empirical Bayes screening of many p-values with applications to microarray studies.
Datta S; Datta S
Bioinformatics; 2005 May; 21(9):1987-94. PubMed ID: 15691856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: evaluation by doctor versus paramedical worker.
Bhatla N; Mukhopadhyay A; Joshi S; Kumar A; Kriplani A; Pandey RM; Verma K
Indian J Cancer; 2004; 41(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 15105577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The contribution of clinical breast examination to the accuracy of breast screening.
Chiarelli AM; Majpruz V; Brown P; Thériault M; Shumak R; Mai V
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Sep; 101(18):1236-43. PubMed ID: 19720967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Simultaneous alleviation of verification and reference standard biases in a community-based tuberculosis screening study using Bayesian latent class analysis.
Keter AK; Vanobberghen F; Lynen L; Van Heerden A; Fehr J; Olivier S; Wong EB; Glass TR; Reither K; Goetghebeur E; Jacobs BKM
PLoS One; 2024; 19(6):e0305126. PubMed ID: 38857227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Bayesian analysis of diagnostic test accuracy when disease state is unverified for some subjects.
Pennello GA
J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Sep; 21(5):954-70. PubMed ID: 21830925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A Bayesian approach to estimate and validate the false negative fraction in a two-stage multiple screening test.
Held L; Ranyimbo AO
Methods Inf Med; 2004; 43(5):461-4. PubMed ID: 15702201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. On the estimation of disease prevalence by latent class models for screening studies using two screening tests with categorical disease status verified in test positives only.
Chu H; Zhou Y; Cole SR; Ibrahim JG
Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(11):1206-18. PubMed ID: 20191614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Off Bayes: effect of verification bias on posterior probabilities calculated using Bayes' theorem.
Diamond GA
Med Decis Making; 1992; 12(1):22-31. PubMed ID: 1538629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Introducing Bayesian thinking to high-throughput screening for false-negative rate estimation.
Wei X; Gao L; Zhang X; Qian H; Rowan K; Mark D; Peng Z; Huang KS
J Biomol Screen; 2013 Oct; 18(9):1121-31. PubMed ID: 23720569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A new method to address verification bias in studies of clinical screening tests: cervical cancer screening assays as an example.
Xue X; Kim MY; Castle PE; Strickler HD
J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Mar; 67(3):343-53. PubMed ID: 24332397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Estimating the impact of prevention action: a simulation model of cervical cancer progression.
Rosen-Zvi M; Shpigelman L; Kalton A; Weissbrod O; Akindeinde S; Benefeldt S; Bentley A; Everett T; Jajinskiji J; Kweyu E; Neti C; Saab J; Stewart O; Ward M; Xie GT
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2014; 205():288-92. PubMed ID: 25160192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified.
Chock C; Irwig L; Berry G; Glasziou P
J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1211-7. PubMed ID: 9393377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Methods for the joint meta-analysis of multiple tests.
Trikalinos TA; Hoaglin DC; Small KM; Terrin N; Schmid CH
Res Synth Methods; 2014 Dec; 5(4):294-312. PubMed ID: 26052954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Univariate and bivariate likelihood-based meta-analysis methods performed comparably when marginal sensitivity and specificity were the targets of inference.
Dahabreh IJ; Trikalinos TA; Lau J; Schmid CH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Mar; 83():8-17. PubMed ID: 28063915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. [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]
37. On the prediction of statistical parameters in high-throughput screening using resampling techniques.
Ilouga PE; Hesterkamp T
J Biomol Screen; 2012 Jul; 17(6):705-12. PubMed ID: 22460175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Estimating the accuracy of neurocognitive effort measures in the absence of a "gold standard".
Mossman D; Wygant DB; Gervais RO
Psychol Assess; 2012 Dec; 24(4):815-22. PubMed ID: 22545695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
