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.
8. Evaluating the reliability of analytical results using a probability criterion: a Bayesian perspective. Rozet E; Govaerts B; Lebrun P; Michail K; Ziemons E; Wintersteiger R; Rudaz S; Boulanger B; Hubert P Anal Chim Acta; 2011 Oct; 705(1-2):193-206. PubMed ID: 21962362 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Critical analysis of several analytical method validation strategies in the framework of the fit for purpose concept. Bouabidi A; Rozet E; Fillet M; Ziemons E; Chapuzet E; Mertens B; Klinkenberg R; Ceccato A; Talbi M; Streel B; Bouklouze A; Boulanger B; Hubert P J Chromatogr A; 2010 May; 1217(19):3180-92. PubMed ID: 19733857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Key aspects of analytical method validation and linearity evaluation. Araujo P J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci; 2009 Aug; 877(23):2224-34. PubMed ID: 18929516 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Development and evaluation of a simulation procedure to take into account various assays for the Bayesian dose adjustment of tacrolimus. Saint-Marcoux F; Debord J; Parant F; Labalette M; Kamar N; Rostaing L; Rousseau A; Marquet P Ther Drug Monit; 2011 Apr; 33(2):171-7. PubMed ID: 21383655 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Variability and uncertainty of biokinetic model parameters: the discrete empirical Bayes approximation. Miller G Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 131(3):394-8. PubMed ID: 18689801 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A fully Bayesian multivariate approach to before-after safety evaluation. Park ES; Park J; Lomax TJ Accid Anal Prev; 2010 Jul; 42(4):1118-27. PubMed ID: 20441821 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Towards quantitative uncertainty assessment for cancer risks: central estimates and probability distributions of risk in dose-response modeling. Kopylev L; Chen C; White P Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Dec; 49(3):203-7. PubMed ID: 17905499 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A bottom-up approach in estimating the measurement uncertainty and other important considerations for quantitative analyses in drug testing for horses. Leung GN; Ho EN; Kwok WH; Leung DK; Tang FP; Wan TS; Wong AS; Wong CH; Wong JK; Yu NH J Chromatogr A; 2007 Sep; 1163(1-2):237-46. PubMed ID: 17628571 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of various international guidelines for analytical method validation. Chandran S; Singh RS Pharmazie; 2007 Jan; 62(1):4-14. PubMed ID: 17294806 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reply to the responses on the comments on "Uncertainty profiles for the validation of analytical methods" by Saffaj and Ihssane. Rozet E; Ziemons E; Marini RD; Boulanger B; Hubert P; Boulanger B Talanta; 2012 Oct; 100():290-2. PubMed ID: 23141339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of uncertainty in quantitative real-time PCR. Love JL; Scholes P; Gilpin B; Savill M; Lin S; Samuel L J Microbiol Methods; 2006 Nov; 67(2):349-56. PubMed ID: 16735069 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bayesian optimal designs for pharmacokinetic models: sensitivity to uncertainty. Dokoumetzidis A; Aarons L J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(5):851-67. PubMed ID: 17885870 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Bayesian decision threshold, detection limit and confidence limits in ionising-radiation measurement. Weise K; Hübel K; Rose E; Schläger M; Schrammel D; Täschner M; Michel R Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006; 121(1):52-63. PubMed ID: 16868015 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]