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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23844579)

  • 1. FDR control with pseudo-gatekeeping based on a possibly data driven order of the hypotheses.
    Farcomeni A; Finos L
    Biometrics; 2013 Sep; 69(3):606-13. PubMed ID: 23844579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A shifting level model algorithm that identifies aberrations in array-CGH data.
    Magi A; Benelli M; Marseglia G; Nannetti G; Scordo MR; Torricelli F
    Biostatistics; 2010 Apr; 11(2):265-80. PubMed ID: 19948744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An investigation on performance of Significance Analysis of Microarray (SAM) for the comparisons of several treatments with one control in the presence of small-variance genes.
    Lin D; Shkedy Z; Burzykowski T; Ion R; Göhlmann HW; Bondt AD; Perer T; Geerts T; Van den Wyngaert I; Bijnens L
    Biom J; 2008 Oct; 50(5):801-23. PubMed ID: 18932139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Wavelet thresholding with bayesian false discovery rate control.
    Tadesse MG; Ibrahim JG; Vannucci M; Gentleman R
    Biometrics; 2005 Mar; 61(1):25-35. PubMed ID: 15737075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. k-FWER control without p -value adjustment, with application to detection of genetic determinants of multiple sclerosis in italian twins.
    Finos L; Farcomeni A
    Biometrics; 2011 Mar; 67(1):174-81. PubMed ID: 20528862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Empirical Bayes screening of many p-values with applications to microarray studies.
    Datta S; Datta S
    Bioinformatics; 2005 May; 21(9):1987-94. PubMed ID: 15691856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Resampling-based empirical Bayes multiple testing procedures for controlling generalized tail probability and expected value error rates: focus on the false discovery rate and simulation study.
    Dudoit S; Gilbert HN; van der Laan MJ
    Biom J; 2008 Oct; 50(5):716-44. PubMed ID: 18932138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Screening for partial conjunction hypotheses.
    Benjamini Y; Heller R
    Biometrics; 2008 Dec; 64(4):1215-22. PubMed ID: 18261164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A note on using permutation-based false discovery rate estimates to compare different analysis methods for microarray data.
    Xie Y; Pan W; Khodursky AB
    Bioinformatics; 2005 Dec; 21(23):4280-8. PubMed ID: 16188930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Trimmed weighted Simes' test for two one-sided hypotheses with arbitrarily correlated test statistics.
    Brannath W; Bretz F; Maurer W; Sarkar S
    Biom J; 2009 Dec; 51(6):885-98. PubMed ID: 20014203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An optimal test with maximum average power while controlling FDR with application to RNA-seq data.
    Si Y; Liu P
    Biometrics; 2013 Sep; 69(3):594-605. PubMed ID: 23889143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. General multistage gatekeeping procedures.
    Dmitrienko A; Tamhane AC; Wiens BL
    Biom J; 2008 Oct; 50(5):667-77. PubMed ID: 18932130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sources of variation in false discovery rate estimation include sample size, correlation, and inherent differences between groups.
    Zhang J; Coombes KR
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2012; 13 Suppl 13(Suppl 13):S1. PubMed ID: 23320794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A unified approach to false discovery rate estimation.
    Strimmer K
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2008 Jul; 9():303. PubMed ID: 18613966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Two-stage designs for experiments with a large number of hypotheses.
    Zehetmayer S; Bauer P; Posch M
    Bioinformatics; 2005 Oct; 21(19):3771-7. PubMed ID: 16091414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. FDR-controlling testing procedures and sample size determination for microarrays.
    Li SS; Bigler J; Lampe JW; Potter JD; Feng Z
    Stat Med; 2005 Aug; 24(15):2267-80. PubMed ID: 15977294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sample size for FDR-control in microarray data analysis.
    Jung SH
    Bioinformatics; 2005 Jul; 21(14):3097-104. PubMed ID: 15845654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Quick calculation for sample size while controlling false discovery rate with application to microarray analysis.
    Liu P; Hwang JT
    Bioinformatics; 2007 Mar; 23(6):739-46. PubMed ID: 17237060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of a statistical equivalence test applied to microarray data.
    Qiu J; Cui X
    J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Mar; 20(2):240-66. PubMed ID: 20309757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multidimensional local false discovery rate for microarray studies.
    Ploner A; Calza S; Gusnanto A; Pawitan Y
    Bioinformatics; 2006 Mar; 22(5):556-65. PubMed ID: 16368770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.