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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25001904)

  • 1. [Over- and Underestimation of Success Rates].
    Höder J; Eisemann N; Hüppe A
    Gesundheitswesen; 2015 Jun; 77(6):426-31. PubMed ID: 25001904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An evaluation of inferential procedures for adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size.
    Levin GP; Emerson SC; Emerson SS
    Biometrics; 2014 Sep; 70(3):556-67. PubMed ID: 24766094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Relative effect per patient (REPP)--outcome groups for total hip replacement and total knee replacement].
    Huber J; Dabis E; Zumstein MD; Hüsler J
    Z Orthop Unfall; 2013 Jun; 151(3):239-42. PubMed ID: 23696160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating false positives and negatives in brain networks.
    de Reus MA; van den Heuvel MP
    Neuroimage; 2013 Apr; 70():402-9. PubMed ID: 23296185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.
    Borm GF; Munneke M; Lemmers O; van Zuijlen M
    Stat Med; 2007 Aug; 26(18):3498-510. PubMed ID: 16981185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Some comments on false discovery rate.
    Bar-Hen A; Kim KI; Van De Wiel MA
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2007 Aug; 5(4):987-90. PubMed ID: 17787067
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Estimating Measurement Error of the Patient Activation Measure for Respondents with Partially Missing Data.
    Linden A
    Biomed Res Int; 2015; 2015():270168. PubMed ID: 26636096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity values can be back-calculated when the odds ratios are known.
    Simel DL; Easter J; Tomlinson G
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Apr; 66(4):458-60. PubMed ID: 23021858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Methods for the joint meta-analysis of multiple tests.
    Trikalinos TA; Hoaglin DC; Small KM; Terrin N; Schmid CH
    Res Synth Methods; 2014 Dec; 5(4):294-312. PubMed ID: 26052954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A closer look at self-reported suicide attempts: false positives and false negatives.
    Plöderl M; Kralovec K; Yazdi K; Fartacek R
    Suicide Life Threat Behav; 2011 Feb; 41(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 21309818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A new method with flexible and balanced control of false negatives and false positives for hit selection in RNA interference high-throughput screening assays.
    Zhang XD
    J Biomol Screen; 2007 Aug; 12(5):645-55. PubMed ID: 17517904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure.
    Brozek JL; Guyatt GH; Schünemann HJ
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2006 Sep; 4():69. PubMed ID: 17005037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified.
    Chock C; Irwig L; Berry G; Glasziou P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1211-7. PubMed ID: 9393377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. QALYs: incorporating the rate of change in quality of life.
    Katostaras T; Katostara N
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2013; 190():216-8. PubMed ID: 23823427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. When minimal detectable change exceeds a diagnostic test-based threshold change value for an outcome measure: resolving the conflict.
    Stratford PW; Riddle DL
    Phys Ther; 2012 Oct; 92(10):1338-47. PubMed ID: 22767887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The Impact of Item Parameter Drift in Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT).
    Risk N
    J Appl Meas; 2016; 17(1):54-78. PubMed ID: 26784378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Classification criteria for distinguishing cortisol responders from nonresponders to psychosocial stress: evaluation of salivary cortisol pulse detection in panel designs.
    Miller R; Plessow F; Kirschbaum C; Stalder T
    Psychosom Med; 2013; 75(9):832-40. PubMed ID: 24184845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A new method for identification of outliers in immunogenicity assay cut point data.
    Zhang J; Arends RH; Kubiak RJ; Roskos LK; Liang M; Lee N; Chen CC; Yang H
    J Immunol Methods; 2020; 484-485():112817. PubMed ID: 32615125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Roaming through methodology. XXXII. False test results].
    van der Weijden T; van den Akker M
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 May; 145(19):906-8. PubMed ID: 11387865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.