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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23890315)

  • 21. [Analyzing interrater agreement for categorical data using Cohen's kappa and alternative coefficients].
    Wirtz M; Kutschmann M
    Rehabilitation (Stuttg); 2007 Dec; 46(6):370-7. PubMed ID: 18188809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Statistical description of interrater variability in ordinal ratings.
    Nelson JC; Pepe MS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2000 Oct; 9(5):475-96. PubMed ID: 11191261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Focus on Psychometrics. Kappa muddles together two sources of disagreement: tetrachoric correlation is preferable.
    Hutchinson TP
    Res Nurs Health; 1993 Aug; 16(4):313-6. PubMed ID: 8378561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Quality criteria of assessment scales--Cohen's kappa as measure of interrator reliability (1)].
    Mayer H; Nonn C; Osterbrink J; Evers GC
    Pflege; 2004 Feb; 17(1):36-46. PubMed ID: 15040245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Weighted specific-category kappa measure of interobserver agreement.
    Kvålseth TO
    Psychol Rep; 2003 Dec; 93(3 Pt 2):1283-90. PubMed ID: 14765602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Measurement of observer agreement.
    Kundel HL; Polansky M
    Radiology; 2003 Aug; 228(2):303-8. PubMed ID: 12819342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The kappa statistic in rehabilitation research: an examination.
    Tooth LR; Ottenbacher KJ
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2004 Aug; 85(8):1371-6. PubMed ID: 15295769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How reliable are chance-corrected measures of agreement?
    Guggenmoos-Holzmann I
    Stat Med; 1993 Dec; 12(23):2191-205. PubMed ID: 8310189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29.
    Tashakor E; Chinchilli VM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(1):174-188. PubMed ID: 29953327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.
    Sim J; Wright CC
    Phys Ther; 2005 Mar; 85(3):257-68. PubMed ID: 15733050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration using offline analysis of the transvaginal ultrasound 'sliding sign' technique: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility.
    Reid S; Lu C; Casikar I; Mein B; Magotti R; Ludlow J; Benzie R; Condous G
    Hum Reprod; 2013 May; 28(5):1237-46. PubMed ID: 23482338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Can visual interpretation of NucliSens graphs reduce the need for repeat viral load testing?
    Handireketi N; Timire C; Shewade HD; Munemo E; Nyagupe C; Chipuka S; Sisya L; Gumbo H; Dhitima E; Harries AD
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0223597. PubMed ID: 31747448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Inter-Rater Agreement Estimates for Data With High Prevalence of a Single Response.
    Waugh SM; He J
    J Nurs Meas; 2019 Aug; 27(2):152-161. PubMed ID: 31511402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Measures of clinical agreement for nominal and categorical data: the kappa coefficient.
    Cyr L; Francis K
    Comput Biol Med; 1992 Jul; 22(4):239-46. PubMed ID: 1643847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Midwives' visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: intra- and inter-observer agreement.
    Devane D; Lalor J
    J Adv Nurs; 2005 Oct; 52(2):133-41. PubMed ID: 16164474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A unified approach for assessing agreement for continuous and categorical data.
    Lin L; Hedayat AS; Wu W
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(4):629-52. PubMed ID: 17613645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Measuring agreement of administrative data with chart data using prevalence unadjusted and adjusted kappa.
    Chen G; Faris P; Hemmelgarn B; Walker RL; Quan H
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2009 Jan; 9():5. PubMed ID: 19159474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Bias, prevalence and kappa.
    Byrt T; Bishop J; Carlin JB
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1993 May; 46(5):423-9. PubMed ID: 8501467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Descriptive statistics: the specification of statistical measures and their presentation in tables and graphs. Part 7 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.
    Spriestersbach A; Röhrig B; du Prel JB; Gerhold-Ay A; Blettner M
    Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2009 Sep; 106(36):578-83. PubMed ID: 19890414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Evaluating the effects of rater and subject factors on measures of association.
    Nelson KP; Mitani AA; Edwards D
    Biom J; 2018 May; 60(3):639-656. PubMed ID: 29349801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.