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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25401304)

  • 1. An internet-based method to elicit experts' beliefs for Bayesian priors: a case study in intracranial stent evaluation.
    Pibouleau L; Chevret S
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2014 Oct; 30(4):446-53. PubMed ID: 25401304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis model for medical device evaluation: application to intracranial stents.
    Pibouleau L; Chevret S
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2013 Apr; 29(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 23601495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Modeling of experts' divergent prior beliefs for a sequential phase III clinical trial.
    Moatti M; Zohar S; Facon T; Moreau P; Mary JY; Chevret S
    Clin Trials; 2013 Aug; 10(4):505-14. PubMed ID: 23820061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A practical approach for eliciting expert prior beliefs about cancer survival in phase III randomized trial.
    Hiance A; Chevret S; Lévy V
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Apr; 62(4):431-437.e2. PubMed ID: 19010642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A valid and reliable belief elicitation method for Bayesian priors.
    Johnson SR; Tomlinson GA; Hawker GA; Granton JT; Grosbein HA; Feldman BM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Apr; 63(4):370-83. PubMed ID: 19926253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Bayesian non-inferiority approach using experts' margin elicitation - application to the monitoring of safety events.
    Aupiais C; Alberti C; Schmitz T; Baud O; Ursino M; Zohar S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Sep; 19(1):187. PubMed ID: 31533631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment.
    Grigore B; Peters J; Hyde C; Stein K
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2017 Sep; 17(1):131. PubMed ID: 28870196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Use of implicit and explicit bayesian methods in health technology assessment.
    Cooper NJ; Spiegelhalter D; Bujkiewicz S; Dequen P; Sutton AJ
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2013 Jul; 29(3):336-42. PubMed ID: 23863191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Structured approach to the elicitation of expert beliefs for a Bayesian-designed clinical trial: a case study.
    Kinnersley N; Day S
    Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(2):104-13. PubMed ID: 23335494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Application and Evaluation of an Expert Judgment Elicitation Procedure for Correlations.
    Zondervan-Zwijnenburg M; van de Schoot-Hubeek W; Lek K; Hoijtink H; van de Schoot R
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():90. PubMed ID: 28197115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].
    Biggeri A; Bellini P; Terracini B;
    Epidemiol Prev; 2001; 25(2 Suppl):1-71. PubMed ID: 11515188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Using the Data Agreement Criterion to Rank Experts' Beliefs.
    Veen D; Stoel D; Schalken N; Mulder K; Van de Schoot R
    Entropy (Basel); 2018 Aug; 20(8):. PubMed ID: 33265681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Proposal for a Five-Step Method to Elicit Expert Judgment.
    Veen D; Stoel D; Zondervan-Zwijnenburg M; van de Schoot R
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():2110. PubMed ID: 29259569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Integrating expert opinions with clinical trial data to analyse low-powered subgroup analyses: a Bayesian analysis of the VeRDiCT trial.
    Thirard R; Ascione R; Blazeby JM; Rogers CA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Dec; 20(1):300. PubMed ID: 33302878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A guide to eliciting and using expert knowledge in Bayesian ecological models.
    Kuhnert PM; Martin TG; Griffiths SP
    Ecol Lett; 2010 Jul; 13(7):900-14. PubMed ID: 20497209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Bayesian hierarchical model for mortality data from cluster-sampling household surveys in humanitarian crises.
    Heudtlass P; Guha-Sapir D; Speybroeck N
    Int J Epidemiol; 2018 Aug; 47(4):1255-1263. PubMed ID: 29860332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Eliciting uncertainty for complex parameters in model-based economic evaluations: quantifying a temporal change in the treatment effect.
    Jankovic D; Payne K; Kanaan M; Bojke L
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2022 Feb; 38(1):e21. PubMed ID: 35177145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Methods to elicit experts' beliefs over uncertain quantities: application to a cost effectiveness transition model of negative pressure wound therapy for severe pressure ulceration.
    Soares MO; Bojke L; Dumville J; Iglesias C; Cullum N; Claxton K
    Stat Med; 2011 Aug; 30(19):2363-80. PubMed ID: 21748773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Methods to elicit probability distributions from experts: a systematic review of reported practice in health technology assessment.
    Grigore B; Peters J; Hyde C; Stein K
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Nov; 31(11):991-1003. PubMed ID: 24105473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Methods to elicit beliefs for Bayesian priors: a systematic review.
    Johnson SR; Tomlinson GA; Hawker GA; Granton JT; Feldman BM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Apr; 63(4):355-69. PubMed ID: 19716263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.