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 *

273 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23296397)

  • 1. Testing for improvement in prediction model performance.
    Pepe MS; Kerr KF; Longton G; Wang Z
    Stat Med; 2013 Apr; 32(9):1467-82. PubMed ID: 23296397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Estimating the capacity for improvement in risk prediction with a marker.
    Gu W; Pepe MS
    Biostatistics; 2009 Jan; 10(1):172-86. PubMed ID: 18714084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models.
    Demler OV; Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 2012 Oct; 31(23):2577-87. PubMed ID: 22415937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Inference for the difference in the area under the ROC curve derived from nested binary regression models.
    Heller G; Seshan VE; Moskowitz CS; Gönen M
    Biostatistics; 2017 Apr; 18(2):260-274. PubMed ID: 27655817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Impact of correlation on predictive ability of biomarkers.
    Demler OV; Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 2013 Oct; 32(24):4196-210. PubMed ID: 23640729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Asymptotic distribution of ∆AUC, NRIs, and IDI based on theory of U-statistics.
    Demler OV; Pencina MJ; Cook NR; D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 2017 Sep; 36(21):3334-3360. PubMed ID: 28627112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Equivalence of improvement in area under ROC curve and linear discriminant analysis coefficient under assumption of normality.
    Demler OV; Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB
    Stat Med; 2011 May; 30(12):1410-8. PubMed ID: 21337594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing risk prediction models in case-control studies using semiparametric and nonparametric methods.
    Huang Y; Pepe MS
    Stat Med; 2010 Jun; 29(13):1391-410. PubMed ID: 20527013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Joint modeling, covariate adjustment, and interaction: contrasting notions in risk prediction models and risk prediction performance.
    Kerr KF; Pepe MS
    Epidemiology; 2011 Nov; 22(6):805-12. PubMed ID: 21968770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Interpreting incremental value of markers added to risk prediction models.
    Pencina MJ; D'Agostino RB; Pencina KM; Janssens AC; Greenland P
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Sep; 176(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 22875755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sufficient dimension reduction for longitudinally measured predictors.
    Pfeiffer RM; Forzani L; Bura E
    Stat Med; 2012 Sep; 31(22):2414-27. PubMed ID: 22161635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluating the incremental value of new biomarkers with integrated discrimination improvement.
    Kerr KF; McClelland RL; Brown ER; Lumley T
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Aug; 174(3):364-74. PubMed ID: 21673124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A direct method to evaluate the time-dependent predictive accuracy for biomarkers.
    Shen W; Ning J; Yuan Y
    Biometrics; 2015 Jun; 71(2):439-49. PubMed ID: 25758584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The power-integrated discriminant improvement: An accurate measure of the incremental predictive value of additional biomarkers.
    Hayashi K; Eguchi S
    Stat Med; 2019 Jun; 38(14):2589-2604. PubMed ID: 30859601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. On the assessment of the added value of new predictive biomarkers.
    Chen W; Samuelson FW; Gallas BD; Kang L; Sahiner B; Petrick N
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Jul; 13():98. PubMed ID: 23895587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Graphical assessment of incremental value of novel markers in prediction models: From statistical to decision analytical perspectives.
    Steyerberg EW; Vedder MM; Leening MJ; Postmus D; D'Agostino RB; Van Calster B; Pencina MJ
    Biom J; 2015 Jul; 57(4):556-70. PubMed ID: 25042996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.
    Vickers AJ; Cronin AM; Begg CB
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Jan; 11():13. PubMed ID: 21276237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Estimating the diagnostic likelihood ratio of a continuous marker.
    Gu W; Pepe MS
    Biostatistics; 2011 Jan; 12(1):87-101. PubMed ID: 20639522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluating the effect of multiple genetic risk score models on colorectal cancer risk prediction.
    Xin J; Chu H; Ben S; Ge Y; Shao W; Zhao Y; Wei Y; Ma G; Li S; Gu D; Zhang Z; Du M; Wang M
    Gene; 2018 Oct; 673():174-180. PubMed ID: 29908285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Several methods to assess improvement in risk prediction models: extension to survival analysis.
    Chambless LE; Cummiskey CP; Cui G
    Stat Med; 2011 Jan; 30(1):22-38. PubMed ID: 20827726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.