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 *

301 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24478163)

  • 21. Propensity score methods for estimating relative risks in cluster randomized trials with low-incidence binary outcomes and selection bias.
    Leyrat C; Caille A; Donner A; Giraudeau B
    Stat Med; 2014 Sep; 33(20):3556-75. PubMed ID: 24771662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Normand SL; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):754-68. PubMed ID: 16783757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Using classification tree analysis to generate propensity score weights.
    Linden A; Yarnold PR
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):703-712. PubMed ID: 28371206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Propensity score methods and regression adjustment for analysis of nonrandomized studies with health-related quality of life outcomes.
    Cottone F; Anota A; Bonnetain F; Collins GS; Efficace F
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2019 May; 28(5):690-699. PubMed ID: 30784132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28454568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. How Do Propensity Score Methods Measure Up in the Presence of Measurement Error? A Monte Carlo Study.
    Rodríguez De Gil P; Bellara AP; Lanehart RE; Lee RS; Kim ES; Kromrey JD
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2015; 50(5):520-32. PubMed ID: 26610250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Franklin JM; Glynn RJ; Solomon DH; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2013 May; 24(3):401-9. PubMed ID: 23532053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study.
    Setoguchi S; Schneeweiss S; Brookhart MA; Glynn RJ; Cook EF
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2008 Jun; 17(6):546-55. PubMed ID: 18311848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. On the use of propensity scores in case of rare exposure.
    Hajage D; Tubach F; Steg PG; Bhatt DL; De Rycke Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Mar; 16():38. PubMed ID: 27036963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Machine learning outcome regression improves doubly robust estimation of average causal effects.
    Choi BY; Wang CP; Gelfond J
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Sep; 29(9):1120-1133. PubMed ID: 32716126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Targeted estimation of nuisance parameters to obtain valid statistical inference.
    van der Laan MJ
    Int J Biostat; 2014; 10(1):29-57. PubMed ID: 24516006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study.
    Barrette E; Higuera L; Wherry K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38539082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Performance of propensity score methods when comparison groups originate from different data sources.
    Hammill BG; Curtis LH; Setoguchi S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():81-9. PubMed ID: 22552983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Confounder-adjusted estimates of the risk difference using propensity score-based weighting.
    Ukoumunne OC; Williamson E; Forbes AB; Gulliford MC; Carlin JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3126-36. PubMed ID: 21170907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The Comparison of Latent Variable Propensity Score Models to Traditional Propensity Score Models under Conditions of Covariate Unreliability.
    Whittaker TA
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(4):625-646. PubMed ID: 31530179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples.
    Rassen JA; Glynn RJ; Brookhart MA; Schneeweiss S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 173(12):1404-13. PubMed ID: 21602301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Studies with many covariates and few outcomes: selecting covariates and implementing propensity-score-based confounding adjustments.
    Patorno E; Glynn RJ; Hernández-Díaz S; Liu J; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2014 Mar; 25(2):268-78. PubMed ID: 24487209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Within-center matching performed better when using propensity score matching to analyze multicenter survival data: empirical and Monte Carlo studies.
    Gayat E; Thabut G; Christie JD; Mebazaa A; Mary JY; Porcher R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):1029-37. PubMed ID: 23800533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research.
    Fortin SP; Johnston SS; Schuemie MJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 May; 21(1):109. PubMed ID: 34030640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.