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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22034488)

  • 1. Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification.
    Pearl J
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Dec; 174(11):1223-7; discussion pg 1228-9. PubMed ID: 22034488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Invited commentary: advancing propensity score methods in epidemiology.
    Oakes JM; Church TR
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 May; 165(10):1119-21; discussion 1122-3. PubMed ID: 17395596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The impact of unmeasured within- and between-cluster confounding on the bias of effect estimatorsof a continuous exposure.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Aug; 29(8):2119-2139. PubMed ID: 31694489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bias amplification in the g-computation algorithm for time-varying treatments: a case study of industry payments and prescription of opioid products.
    Inoue K; Goto A; Kondo N; Shinozaki T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):120. PubMed ID: 35468735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.
    Myers JA; Rassen JA; Gagne JJ; Huybrechts KF; Schneeweiss S; Rothman KJ; Joffe MM; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Dec; 174(11):1213-22. PubMed ID: 22025356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Invited commentary: causation or "noitasuac"?
    Schisterman E; Whitcomb B; Bowers K
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 May; 173(9):984-7; reply 988-9. PubMed ID: 21430191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.
    John ER; Abrams KR; Brightling CE; Sheehan NA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Nov; 19(1):207. PubMed ID: 31726969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bias Amplification in Epidemiologic Analysis of Exposure to Mixtures.
    Weisskopf MG; Seals RM; Webster TF
    Environ Health Perspect; 2018 Apr; 126(4):047003. PubMed ID: 29624292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reducing Bias Amplification in the Presence of Unmeasured Confounding Through Out-of-Sample Estimation Strategies for the Disease Risk Score.
    Wyss R; Lunt M; Brookhart MA; Glynn RJ; Stürmer T
    J Causal Inference; 2014 Sep; 2(2):131-146. PubMed ID: 25313347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Studies with many covariates and few outcomes: selecting covariates and implementing propensity-score-based confounding adjustments.
    Patorno E; Glynn RJ; Hernández-Díaz S; Liu J; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2014 Mar; 25(2):268-78. PubMed ID: 24487209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of multiple unmeasured confounders.
    Groenwold RH; Sterne JA; Lawlor DA; Moons KG; Hoes AW; Tilling K
    Ann Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):605-11. PubMed ID: 27576907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Propensity Score-Based Estimators With Multiple Error-Prone Covariates.
    Hong H; Aaby DA; Siddique J; Stuart EA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2019 Jan; 188(1):222-230. PubMed ID: 30358801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Invited commentary: is it time to retire the "pack-years" variable? Maybe not!
    Thomas DC
    Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Feb; 179(3):299-302. PubMed ID: 24355333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Confounder adjustment in observational comparative effectiveness researches: (2) statistical adjustment approaches for unmeasured confounders].
    Huang LL; Wei YY; Chen F
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Nov; 40(11):1450-1455. PubMed ID: 31838820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Invited Commentary: Beware the Test-Negative Design.
    Westreich D; Hudgens MG
    Am J Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 184(5):354-6. PubMed ID: 27587722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. On a preference-based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding-by-indication.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Wolfe RA; Morgenstern H; Zhang J; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(7):1150-68. PubMed ID: 25546152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A general approach to evaluating the bias of 2-stage instrumental variable estimators.
    Wan F; Small D; Mitra N
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(12):1997-2015. PubMed ID: 29572890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Invited Commentary: Bias Attenuation and Identification of Causal Effects With Multiple Negative Controls.
    Miao W; Tchetgen Tchetgen E
    Am J Epidemiol; 2017 May; 185(10):950-953. PubMed ID: 28430847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution--a simulation study.
    Stürmer T; Rothman KJ; Avorn J; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 172(7):843-54. PubMed ID: 20716704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.