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 *

249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25040026)

  • 1. Uncertainty analysis of a groundwater flow model in East-central Florida.
    Sepúlveda N; Doherty J
    Ground Water; 2015; 53(3):464-74. PubMed ID: 25040026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pathline Density Distributions in a Null-Space Monte Carlo Approach to Assess Groundwater Pathways.
    Moeck C; Molson J; Schirmer M
    Ground Water; 2020 Mar; 58(2):189-207. PubMed ID: 31066038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Model uncertainty--parameter uncertainty versus conceptual models.
    Højberg AL; Refsgaard JC
    Water Sci Technol; 2005; 52(6):177-86. PubMed ID: 16304950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Using atmospheric tracers to reduce uncertainty in groundwater recharge areas.
    Starn JJ; Bagtzoglou AC; Robbins GA
    Ground Water; 2010; 48(6):858-68. PubMed ID: 21416662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Parameter Estimation for Groundwater Models under Uncertain Irrigation Data.
    Demissie Y; Valocchi A; Cai X; Brozovic N; Senay G; Gebremichael M
    Ground Water; 2015; 53(4):614-25. PubMed ID: 25040235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reducing uncertainty in calibrating aquifer flow model with multiple scales of heterogeneity.
    Zhang Y
    Ground Water; 2014; 52(3):343-51. PubMed ID: 24749908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dynamic interactions between hydrogeological and exposure parameters in daily dose prediction under uncertainty and temporal variability.
    Kumar V; de Barros FP; Schuhmacher M; Fernàndez-Garcia D; Sanchez-Vila X
    J Hazard Mater; 2013 Dec; 263 Pt 1():197-206. PubMed ID: 24011618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Numerical study of groundwater flow cycling controlled by seawater/freshwater interaction in a coastal karst aquifer through conduit network using CFPv2.
    Xu Z; Hu BX; Davis H; Kish S
    J Contam Hydrol; 2015 Nov; 182():131-45. PubMed ID: 26387032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Efficient Calibration/Uncertainty Analysis Using Paired Complex/Surrogate Models.
    Burrows W; Doherty J
    Ground Water; 2015; 53(4):531-41. PubMed ID: 25142272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of methods to estimate spring flows in a karst aquifer.
    Sepúlveda N
    Ground Water; 2009; 47(3):337-49. PubMed ID: 18800971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Uncertainty quantification of environmental performance metrics in heterogeneous aquifers with long-range correlations.
    Moslehi M; de Barros FPJ
    J Contam Hydrol; 2017 Jan; 196():21-29. PubMed ID: 27989551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Highly parameterized inversion of groundwater reactive transport for a complex field site.
    Carniato L; Schoups G; van de Giesen N; Seuntjens P; Bastiaens L; Sapion H
    J Contam Hydrol; 2015 Feb; 173():38-58. PubMed ID: 25528244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Uncertainty in hydrogeological modelling.
    Gómez-Hernández JJ
    Ciba Found Symp; 1997; 210():221-8; discussion 228-30. PubMed ID: 9573479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Predicting aquifer response time for application in catchment modeling.
    Walker GR; Gilfedder M; Dawes WR; Rassam DW
    Ground Water; 2015; 53(3):475-84. PubMed ID: 24842053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Constraining groundwater modeling with magnetic resonance soundings.
    Boucher M; Favreau G; Nazoumou Y; Cappelaere B; Massuel S; Legchenko A
    Ground Water; 2012; 50(5):775-84. PubMed ID: 22150349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Practical postcalibration uncertainty analysis: Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
    James SC; Doherty JE; Eddebbarh AA
    Ground Water; 2009; 47(6):851-69. PubMed ID: 19744249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty.
    Ye M; Pohlmann KF; Chapman JB; Pohll GM; Reeves DM
    Ground Water; 2010; 48(5):716-28. PubMed ID: 19788638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Geostatistics-based groundwater-level monitoring network design and its application to the Upper Floridan aquifer, USA.
    Bhat S; Motz LH; Pathak C; Kuebler L
    Environ Monit Assess; 2015 Jan; 187(1):4183. PubMed ID: 25433546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bayesian inference of coupled groundwater flow and radiogenic helium-4 production and transport at the catchment scale.
    Casillas-Trasvina A; Rogiers B; Beerten K; Wouters L; Walraevens K
    Sci Total Environ; 2024 Dec; 954():176510. PubMed ID: 39362538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comprehensive study on parameter sensitivity for flow and nutrient modeling in the Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran model.
    Luo C; Li Z; Wu M; Jiang K; Chen X; Li H
    Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2017 Sep; 24(26):20982-20994. PubMed ID: 28726223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.