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 *

216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24505361)

  • 1. Trap configuration and spacing influences parameter estimates in spatial capture-recapture models.
    Sun CC; Fuller AK; Royle JA
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(2):e88025. PubMed ID: 24505361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Trap array configuration influences estimates and precision of black bear density and abundance.
    Wilton CM; Puckett EE; Beringer J; Gardner B; Eggert LS; Belant JL
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(10):e111257. PubMed ID: 25350557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Precision and bias of spatial capture-recapture estimates: A multi-site, multi-year Utah black bear case study.
    Schmidt GM; Graves TA; Pederson JC; Carroll SL
    Ecol Appl; 2022 Jul; 32(5):e2618. PubMed ID: 35368131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How does spatial study design influence density estimates from spatial capture-recapture models?
    Sollmann R; Gardner B; Belant JL
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e34575. PubMed ID: 22539949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A Comparison of Grizzly Bear Demographic Parameters Estimated from Non-Spatial and Spatial Open Population Capture-Recapture Models.
    Whittington J; Sawaya MA
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0134446. PubMed ID: 26230262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of social organization, trap arrangement and density, sampling scale, and population density on bias in population size estimation using some common mark-recapture estimators.
    Gupta M; Joshi A; Vidya TN
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(3):e0173609. PubMed ID: 28306735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimal sampling design for spatial capture-recapture.
    Dupont G; Royle JA; Nawaz MA; Sutherland C
    Ecology; 2021 Mar; 102(3):e03262. PubMed ID: 33244753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Performance of spatial capture-recapture models with repurposed data: Assessing estimator robustness for retrospective applications.
    Smith JB; Stevens BS; Etter DR; Williams DM
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0236978. PubMed ID: 32797083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Hierarchical models for estimating density from DNA mark-recapture studies.
    Gardner B; Royle JA; Wegan MT
    Ecology; 2009 Apr; 90(4):1106-15. PubMed ID: 19449704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Spatial capture-recapture model performance with known small-mammal densities.
    Gerber BD; Parmenter RR
    Ecol Appl; 2015 Apr; 25(3):695-705. PubMed ID: 26214915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sampling designs matching species biology produce accurate and affordable abundance indices.
    Harris G; Farley S; Russell GJ; Butler MJ; Selinger J
    PeerJ; 2013; 1():e227. PubMed ID: 24392290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture-recapture data.
    Efford MG; Mowat G
    Ecology; 2014 May; 95(5):1341-8. PubMed ID: 25000765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Modeling spatiotemporal abundance and movement dynamics using an integrated spatial capture-recapture movement model.
    Hostetter NJ; Regehr EV; Wilson RR; Royle JA; Converse SJ
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3772. PubMed ID: 35633152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Explaining detection heterogeneity with finite mixture and non-Euclidean movement in spatially explicit capture-recapture models.
    Marrotte RR; Howe EJ; Beauclerc KB; Potter D; Northrup JM
    PeerJ; 2022; 10():e13490. PubMed ID: 35694380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing small-mammal trapping design using spatially explicit capture recapture (SECR) modeling on long-term monitoring data.
    Freeman CM; Barthman-Thompson L; Klinger R; Woo I; Thorne KM
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(7):e0270082. PubMed ID: 35788575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluating and integrating spatial capture-recapture models with data of variable individual identifiability.
    Ruprecht JS; Eriksson CE; Forrester TD; Clark DA; Wisdom MJ; Rowland MM; Johnson BK; Levi T
    Ecol Appl; 2021 Oct; 31(7):e02405. PubMed ID: 34245619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Multiple observation processes in spatial capture-recapture models: How much do we gain?
    Tourani M; Dupont P; Nawaz MA; Bischof R
    Ecology; 2020 Jul; 101(7):e03030. PubMed ID: 32112415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Multiple data sources improve DNA-based mark-recapture population estimates of grizzly bears.
    Boulanger J; Kendall KC; Stetz JB; Roon DA; Waits LP; Paetkau D
    Ecol Appl; 2008 Apr; 18(3):577-89. PubMed ID: 18488618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Abundance estimation for line transect sampling: A comparison of distance sampling and spatial capture-recapture models.
    Crum NJ; Neyman LC; Gowan TA
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(5):e0252231. PubMed ID: 34048456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture-recapture studies.
    Borchers DL; Efford MG
    Biometrics; 2008 Jun; 64(2):377-85. PubMed ID: 17970815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.