107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23275450)
1. An efficient method for computing single-parameter partial expected value of perfect information.
Strong M; Oakley JE
Med Decis Making; 2013 Aug; 33(6):755-66. PubMed ID: 23275450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Calculating partial expected value of perfect information via Monte Carlo sampling algorithms.
Brennan A; Kharroubi S; O'hagan A; Chilcott J
Med Decis Making; 2007; 27(4):448-70. PubMed ID: 17761960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a nonparametric regression approach.
Strong M; Oakley JE; Brennan A
Med Decis Making; 2014 Apr; 34(3):311-26. PubMed ID: 24246566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations.
Oakley JE; Brennan A; Tappenden P; Chilcott J
J Health Econ; 2010 May; 29(3):468-77. PubMed ID: 20378190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample: A Fast, Nonparametric Regression-Based Method.
Strong M; Oakley JE; Brennan A; Breeze P
Med Decis Making; 2015 Jul; 35(5):570-83. PubMed ID: 25810269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo Methods for the Calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information.
Fang W; Wang Z; Giles MB; Jackson CH; Welton NJ; Andrieu C; Thom H
Med Decis Making; 2022 Feb; 42(2):168-181. PubMed ID: 34231446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Need for speed: an efficient algorithm for calculation of single-parameter expected value of partial perfect information.
Sadatsafavi M; Bansback N; Zafari Z; Najafzadeh M; Marra C
Value Health; 2013; 16(2):438-48. PubMed ID: 23538197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An optimization approach to calculating sample sizes with binary responses.
Maroufy V; Marriott P; Pezeshk H
J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(4):715-31. PubMed ID: 24697665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An Efficient Method for Computing Expected Value of Sample Information for Survival Data from an Ongoing Trial.
Vervaart M; Strong M; Claxton KP; Welton NJ; Wisløff T; Aas E
Med Decis Making; 2022 Jul; 42(5):612-625. PubMed ID: 34967237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Parametric and nonparametric population methods: their comparative performance in analysing a clinical dataset and two Monte Carlo simulation studies.
Bustad A; Terziivanov D; Leary R; Port R; Schumitzky A; Jelliffe R
Clin Pharmacokinet; 2006; 45(4):365-83. PubMed ID: 16584284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An Efficient Estimator for the Expected Value of Sample Information.
Menzies NA
Med Decis Making; 2016 Apr; 36(3):308-20. PubMed ID: 25911600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Efficient Monte Carlo Estimation of the Expected Value of Sample Information Using Moment Matching.
Heath A; Manolopoulou I; Baio G
Med Decis Making; 2018 Feb; 38(2):163-173. PubMed ID: 29126364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Efficient Value of Information Calculation Using a Nonparametric Regression Approach: An Applied Perspective.
Tuffaha HW; Strong M; Gordon LG; Scuffham PA
Value Health; 2016 Jun; 19(4):505-9. PubMed ID: 27325343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A gradient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for computing multivariate maximum likelihood estimates and posterior distributions: mixture dose-response assessment.
Li R; Englehardt JD; Li X
Risk Anal; 2012 Feb; 32(2):345-59. PubMed ID: 21906114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation.
Brennan A; Kharroubi SA
J Health Econ; 2007 Jan; 26(1):122-48. PubMed ID: 16945438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Uncertainty and the Value of Information in Risk Prediction Modeling.
Sadatsafavi M; Yoon Lee T; Gustafson P
Med Decis Making; 2022 Jul; 42(5):661-671. PubMed ID: 35209762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Strategies for efficient computation of the expected value of partial perfect information.
Madan J; Ades AE; Price M; Maitland K; Jemutai J; Revill P; Welton NJ
Med Decis Making; 2014 Apr; 34(3):327-42. PubMed ID: 24449434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Calculating Expected Value of Sample Information Adjusting for Imperfect Implementation.
Heath A
Med Decis Making; 2022 Jul; 42(5):626-636. PubMed ID: 35034542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Joint propagation of variability and imprecision in assessing the risk of groundwater contamination.
Baudrit C; Guyonnet D; Dubois D
J Contam Hydrol; 2007 Aug; 93(1-4):72-84. PubMed ID: 17321003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimating the expected value of partial perfect information: a review of methods.
Coyle D; Oakley J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Aug; 9(3):251-9. PubMed ID: 17638032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
