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 *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22624658)

  • 21. Power of a test that is robust against variance heterogeneity.
    Overall JE; Atlas RS; Gibson JM
    Psychol Rep; 1995 Aug; 77(1):155-9. PubMed ID: 7501755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Should we rely on the Kenward-Roger approximation when using linear mixed models if the groups have different distributions?
    Arnau J; Bendayan R; Blanca MJ; Bono R
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 Nov; 67(3):408-29. PubMed ID: 24028625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Biostatistics Series Module 3: Comparing Groups: Numerical Variables.
    Hazra A; Gogtay N
    Indian J Dermatol; 2016; 61(3):251-60. PubMed ID: 27293244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A mixture-model approach for parallel testing for unequal variances.
    Bar HY; Booth JG; Wells MT
    Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol; 2012 Jan; 11(1):Article 8. PubMed ID: 22499680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Sample size planning with the cost constraint for testing superiority and equivalence of two independent groups.
    Guo JH; Chen HJ; Luh WM
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2011 Nov; 64(3):439-61. PubMed ID: 20704777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A comparative study of lognormal, gamma and beta modelling in radon mapping with recommendations regarding bias, sample sizes and the treatment of outliers.
    Murphy P; Organo C
    J Radiol Prot; 2008 Sep; 28(3):293-302. PubMed ID: 18714140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. To test or not to test: Preliminary assessment of normality when comparing two independent samples.
    Rochon J; Gondan M; Kieser M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 Jun; 12():81. PubMed ID: 22712852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Sample size determination for the non-randomised triangular model for sensitive questions in a survey.
    Tian GL; Tang ML; Zhenqiu Liu ; Ming Tan ; Tang NS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2011 Jun; 20(3):159-73. PubMed ID: 19221169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Controlling the Type I error rate by using the nonparametric bootstrap when comparing means.
    Parra-Frutos I
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 Feb; 67(1):117-32. PubMed ID: 23647492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. On sample size of the kruskal-wallis test with application to a mouse peritoneal cavity study.
    Fan C; Zhang D; Zhang CH
    Biometrics; 2011 Mar; 67(1):213-24. PubMed ID: 20345499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Improved statistics for contrasting means of two samples under non-normality.
    Xu J; Cui X; Gupta AK
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):21-40. PubMed ID: 17908368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparing the Performance of Approaches for Testing the Homogeneity of Variance Assumption in One-Factor ANOVA Models.
    Wang Y; Rodríguez de Gil P; Chen YH; Kromrey JD; Kim ES; Pham T; Nguyen D; Romano JL
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2017 Apr; 77(2):305-329. PubMed ID: 29795915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The performance of robust test statistics with categorical data.
    Savalei V; Rhemtulla M
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2013 May; 66(2):201-23. PubMed ID: 22568535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. How many do I need? Basic principles of sample size estimation.
    Devane D; Begley CM; Clarke M
    J Adv Nurs; 2004 Aug; 47(3):297-302. PubMed ID: 15238124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [What to do if statistical power is low? A practical strategy for pre-post-designs].
    Müller J; Manz R; Hoyer J
    Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol; 2002; 52(9-10):408-16. PubMed ID: 12355348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluating clinical significance: incorporating robust statistics with normative comparison tests.
    van Wieringen K; Cribbie RA
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 May; 67(2):213-30. PubMed ID: 23751017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. New heterogeneous test statistics for the unbalanced fixed-effect nested design.
    Guo JH; Billard L; Luh WM
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2011 May; 64(Pt 2):259-76. PubMed ID: 21492132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Sensitivity and specificity of normality tests and consequences on reference interval accuracy at small sample size: a computer-simulation study.
    Le Boedec K
    Vet Clin Pathol; 2016 Dec; 45(4):648-656. PubMed ID: 27556235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Adaptive extensions of a two-stage group sequential procedure for testing primary and secondary endpoints (I): unknown correlation between the endpoints.
    Tamhane AC; Wu Y; Mehta CR
    Stat Med; 2012 Aug; 31(19):2027-40. PubMed ID: 22729929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An algorithm for the design of group sequential triangular tests for single-arm clinical trials with a binary endpoint.
    McWilliams TP
    Stat Med; 2010 Nov; 29(27):2794-801. PubMed ID: 20860065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.