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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25042626)

  • 1. Covariance adjustment on propensity parameters for continuous treatment in linear models.
    Yang W; Joffe MM; Hennessy S; Feldman HI
    Stat Med; 2014 Nov; 33(26):4577-89. PubMed ID: 25042626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Controlling for confounding via propensity score methods can result in biased estimation of the conditional AUC: A simulation study.
    Galadima HI; McClish DK
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Oct; 18(5):568-582. PubMed ID: 31111682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.
    John ER; Abrams KR; Brightling CE; Sheehan NA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Nov; 19(1):207. PubMed ID: 31726969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Merits and caveats of propensity scores to adjust for confounding.
    Fu EL; Groenwold RHH; Zoccali C; Jager KJ; van Diepen M; Dekker FW
    Nephrol Dial Transplant; 2019 Oct; 34(10):1629-1635. PubMed ID: 30215791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Improving causal inference with a doubly robust estimator that combines propensity score stratification and weighting.
    Linden A
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):697-702. PubMed ID: 28116816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate.
    Hade EM; Lu B
    Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):74-87. PubMed ID: 23787715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An evaluation of bias in propensity score-adjusted non-linear regression models.
    Wan F; Mitra N
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):846-862. PubMed ID: 27095754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On regression adjustment for the propensity score.
    Vansteelandt S; Daniel RM
    Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(23):4053-72. PubMed ID: 24825821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(7):1242-58. PubMed ID: 24122911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(11):1874-1894. PubMed ID: 29508424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Estimating effects of nursing intervention via propensity score analysis.
    Qin R; Titler MG; Shever LL; Kim T
    Nurs Res; 2008; 57(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 19018219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(16):2837-49. PubMed ID: 23239115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of different approaches for confounding in nonrandomised observational data: a case-study of antipsychotics treatment.
    Sarlon E; Millier A; Aballéa S; Toumi M
    Community Ment Health J; 2014 Aug; 50(6):711-20. PubMed ID: 24696151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Joint modeling of concurrent binary outcomes in a longitudinal observational study using inverse probability of treatment weighting for treatment effect estimation.
    Agogo GO; Murphy TE; McAvay GJ; Allore HG
    Ann Epidemiol; 2019 Jul; 35():53-58. PubMed ID: 31085069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The intensity of hemodialysis and the response to erythropoietin in patients with end-stage renal disease.
    Ifudu O; Feldman J; Friedman EA
    N Engl J Med; 1996 Feb; 334(7):420-5. PubMed ID: 8552143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment.
    Alam S; Moodie EEM; Stephens DA
    Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1690-1702. PubMed ID: 30586681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Confounding adjustment performance of ordinal analysis methods in stroke studies.
    Zonneveld TP; Aigner A; Groenwold RHH; Algra A; Nederkoorn PJ; Grittner U; Kruyt ND; Siegerink B
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(4):e0231670. PubMed ID: 32298347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Association of quarterly average achieved hematocrit with mortality in dialysis patients: a time-dependent comorbidity-adjusted model.
    Messana JM; Chuang CC; Turenne M; Wheeler J; Turner J; Sleeman K; Tedeschi P; Hirth R
    Am J Kidney Dis; 2009 Mar; 53(3):503-12. PubMed ID: 19185402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.