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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22912343)

  • 1. A weighted generalized score statistic for comparison of predictive values of diagnostic tests.
    Kosinski AS
    Stat Med; 2013 Mar; 32(6):964-77. PubMed ID: 22912343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of predictive values of two diagnostic tests from the same sample of subjects using weighted least squares.
    Wang W; Davis CS; Soong SJ
    Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(13):2215-29. PubMed ID: 16220470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Weighted generalized score test for comparing predictive values in the presence of verification bias.
    Wu Y
    Stat Med; 2022 Oct; 41(24):4838-4859. PubMed ID: 35929435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A new likelihood approach to inference about predictive values of diagnostic tests in paired designs.
    Tsou TS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Feb; 27(2):541-548. PubMed ID: 27114327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Joint comparison of the predictive values of multiple binary diagnostic tests: an extension of McNemar's test.
    Wu Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2023 Jan; 33(1):31-42. PubMed ID: 35576934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A GEE approach to estimating accuracy and its confidence intervals for correlated data.
    Lim Y
    Pharm Stat; 2020 Jan; 19(1):59-70. PubMed ID: 31448536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Small-sample performance of the robust score test and its modifications in generalized estimating equations.
    Guo X; Pan W; Connett JE; Hannan PJ; French SA
    Stat Med; 2005 Nov; 24(22):3479-95. PubMed ID: 15977302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An exact test for comparing two predictive values in small-size clinical trials.
    Takahashi K; Yamamoto K
    Pharm Stat; 2020 Jan; 19(1):31-43. PubMed ID: 31642578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Adjusted closed-form confidence interval formulas for network meta-analysis with a small number of studies.
    Kojima M
    Stat Med; 2023 Feb; 42(4):457-469. PubMed ID: 36539211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs.
    Leisenring W; Alonzo T; Pepe MS
    Biometrics; 2000 Jun; 56(2):345-51. PubMed ID: 10877288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Testing for independence in J×K contingency tables with complex sample survey data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM; Sinha D; Hevelone N; Giovannucci E; Hu JC
    Biometrics; 2015 Sep; 71(3):832-40. PubMed ID: 25762089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Confidence interval for rate ratio in a 2 x 2 table with structural zero: an application in assessing false-negative rate ratio when combining two diagnostic tests.
    Tang ML; Tang NS; Carey VJ
    Biometrics; 2004 Jun; 60(2):550-5; discussion 555. PubMed ID: 15180684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The weighted generalized estimating equations approach for the evaluation of medical diagnostic test at subunit level.
    Lin CY; Barnhart HX; Kosinski AS
    Biom J; 2006 Aug; 48(5):758-71. PubMed ID: 17094341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of likelihood ratio tests and Rao's score test for three separable covariance matrix structures.
    Filipiak K; Klein D; Roy A
    Biom J; 2017 Jan; 59(1):192-215. PubMed ID: 27774639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Efficient statistical tests to compare Youden index: accounting for contingency correlation.
    Chen F; Xue Y; Tan MT; Chen P
    Stat Med; 2015 Apr; 34(9):1560-76. PubMed ID: 25640747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A non-inferiority test for diagnostic accuracy based on the paired partial areas under ROC curves.
    Li CR; Liao CT; Liu JP
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(10):1762-76. PubMed ID: 17968858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Simple confidence interval and region formulas for comparing diagnostic likelihood ratios under a paired design.
    Wu Y
    Biom J; 2021 Jun; 63(5):1086-1095. PubMed ID: 33738853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Statistical inference of risk difference in K correlated 2 x 2 tables with structural zero.
    Wang SF; Tang NS; Zhang B; Wang XR
    Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(4):317-32. PubMed ID: 19152229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of Approaches to Analyzing Continuous Correlated Eye Data When Sample Size Is Small.
    Huang J; Huang J; Chen Y; Ying GS
    Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2018 Feb; 25(1):45-54. PubMed ID: 28891730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Confidence intervals for the symmetry point: an optimal cutpoint in continuous diagnostic tests.
    López-Ratón M; Cadarso-Suárez C; Molanes-López EM; Letón E
    Pharm Stat; 2016; 15(2):178-92. PubMed ID: 26756550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.