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 *

714 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25488047)

  • 21. Confounding adjustment via a semi-automated high-dimensional propensity score algorithm: an application to electronic medical records.
    Toh S; García Rodríguez LA; Hernán MA
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2011 Aug; 20(8):849-57. PubMed ID: 21717528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Regularized Regression Versus the High-Dimensional Propensity Score for Confounding Adjustment in Secondary Database Analyses.
    Franklin JM; Eddings W; Glynn RJ; Schneeweiss S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Oct; 182(7):651-9. PubMed ID: 26233956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Performance of the High-dimensional Propensity Score in a Nordic Healthcare Model.
    Hallas J; Pottegård A
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2017 Mar; 120(3):312-317. PubMed ID: 27889951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Testing causal effects in observational survival data using propensity score matching design.
    Lu B; Cai D; Tong X
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(11):1846-1858. PubMed ID: 29399833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. On the role of marginal confounder prevalence - implications for the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm.
    Schuster T; Pang M; Platt RW
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2015 Sep; 24(9):1004-7. PubMed ID: 25866189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. On variance estimate for covariate adjustment by propensity score analysis.
    Zou B; Zou F; Shuster JJ; Tighe PJ; Koch GG; Zhou H
    Stat Med; 2016 Sep; 35(20):3537-48. PubMed ID: 26999553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. High-dimensional propensity scores for empirical covariate selection in secondary database studies: Planning, implementation, and reporting.
    Rassen JA; Blin P; Kloss S; Neugebauer RS; Platt RW; Pottegård A; Schneeweiss S; Toh S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2023 Feb; 32(2):93-106. PubMed ID: 36349471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Estimation of high-dimensional propensity scores with multiple exposure levels.
    Eberg M; Platt RW; Reynier P; Filion KB
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Jan; 29 Suppl 1():53-60. PubMed ID: 31571347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Can statistical linkage of missing variables reduce bias in treatment effect estimates in comparative effectiveness research studies?
    Crown W; Chang J; Olson M; Kahler K; Swindle J; Buzinec P; Shah N; Borah B
    J Comp Eff Res; 2015 Sep; 4(5):455-63. PubMed ID: 26436848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A cautionary note concerning the use of stabilized weights in marginal structural models.
    Talbot D; Atherton J; Rossi AM; Bacon SL; Lefebvre G
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):812-23. PubMed ID: 25410264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Application of High-Dimensional Propensity Score Methods to the National Health and Aging Trends Study.
    Hamedani AG; Pham Nguyen TP; Willis AW; Tazare JR
    J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci; 2024 Sep; 79(9):. PubMed ID: 39022830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Propensity score prediction for electronic healthcare databases using Super Learner and High-dimensional Propensity Score Methods.
    Ju C; Combs M; Lendle SD; Franklin JM; Wyss R; Schneeweiss S; van der Laan MJ
    J Appl Stat; 2019; 46(12):2216-2236. PubMed ID: 32843815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The alarming problems of confounding equivalence using logistic regression models in the perspective of causal diagrams.
    Yu Y; Li H; Sun X; Su P; Wang T; Liu Y; Yuan Z; Liu Y; Xue F
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):177. PubMed ID: 29281984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparisons of the performance of different statistical tests for time-to-event analysis with confounding factors: practical illustrations in kidney transplantation.
    Le Borgne F; Giraudeau B; Querard AH; Giral M; Foucher Y
    Stat Med; 2016 Mar; 35(7):1103-16. PubMed ID: 26514380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluating the impact of unmeasured confounding with internal validation data: an example cost evaluation in type 2 diabetes.
    Faries D; Peng X; Pawaskar M; Price K; Stamey JD; Seaman JW
    Value Health; 2013; 16(2):259-66. PubMed ID: 23538177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Propensity score models in observational comparative effectiveness studies: cornerstone of design or statistical afterthought?
    Robinson JW
    J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Mar; 1(2):129-35. PubMed ID: 24237373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. A comparison of entropy balance and probability weighting methods to generalize observational cohorts to a population: a simulation and empirical example.
    Harvey RA; Hayden JD; Kamble PS; Bouchard JR; Huang JC
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Apr; 26(4):368-377. PubMed ID: 27859943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Causal Inference in Observational Studies.
    Schuler MS; Rose S
    Am J Epidemiol; 2017 Jan; 185(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 27941068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 36.