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 *

84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25539230)

  • 21. Evaluation of subjective assessment of the low-contrast visibility in constancy control of computed tomography.
    Thilander-Klang A; Ledenius K; Hansson J; Sund P; Båth M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):449-54. PubMed ID: 20176732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Voting for image scoring and assessment (VISA)--theory and application of a 2 + 1 reader algorithm to improve accuracy of imaging endpoints in clinical trials.
    Gottlieb K; Hussain F
    BMC Med Imaging; 2015 Feb; 15():6. PubMed ID: 25880066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Investigation of the variability in the assessment of digital chest X-ray image quality.
    Whaley JS; Pressman BD; Wilson JR; Bravo L; Sehnert WJ; Foos DH
    J Digit Imaging; 2013 Apr; 26(2):217-26. PubMed ID: 22850934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of concordance correlation coefficient and coefficient of individual agreement in assessing agreement.
    Barnhart HX; Lokhnygina Y; Kosinski AS; Haber M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(4):721-38. PubMed ID: 17613650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Likert is Pronounced "LICK-urt" not "LIE-kurt" and the Data are Ordinal not Interval.
    Kero P; Lee D
    J Appl Meas; 2016; 17(4):502-509. PubMed ID: 28009595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Why rate when you could compare? Using the "EloChoice" package to assess pairwise comparisons of perceived physical strength.
    Clark AP; Howard KL; Woods AT; Penton-Voak IS; Neumann C
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(1):e0190393. PubMed ID: 29293615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Coefficients of agreement for fixed observers.
    Haber M; Barnhart HX
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2006 Jun; 15(3):255-71. PubMed ID: 16768299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A Simple Approach for Sample Size Calculation for Comparing Two Concordance Correlation Coefficients Estimated on the Same Subjects.
    Lin HM; Williamson JM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(6):1145-60. PubMed ID: 25321842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Assessing agreement with repeated measures for random observers.
    Chen CC; Barnhart HX
    Stat Med; 2011 Dec; 30(30):3546-59. PubMed ID: 22095759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Overall concordance correlation coefficient for evaluating agreement among multiple observers.
    Barnhart HX; Haber M; Song J
    Biometrics; 2002 Dec; 58(4):1020-7. PubMed ID: 12495158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The "perfect" reader study.
    Gennaro G
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Jun; 103():139-146. PubMed ID: 29653758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The effect of different statistical approaches on image quality data obtained from radiological examinations.
    Saint J; England A; Mohammed Ali A; Bonnett L
    Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):518-523. PubMed ID: 34848136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Methods for the analysis of ordinal response data in medical image quality assessment.
    Keeble C; Baxter PD; Gislason-Lee AJ; Treadgold LA; Davies AG
    Br J Radiol; 2016 Jul; 89(1063):20160094. PubMed ID: 26975497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. An information theoretic measure for the evaluation of ordinal scale data.
    Tastle WJ; Wierman MJ
    Behav Res Methods; 2006 Aug; 38(3):487-94. PubMed ID: 17186759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Parametric tests for Likert scale: For and against.
    Wadgave U; Khairnar MR
    Asian J Psychiatr; 2016 Dec; 24():67-68. PubMed ID: 27931911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A Comparison of Parametric and Non-Parametric Methods Applied to a Likert Scale.
    Mircioiu C; Atkinson J
    Pharmacy (Basel); 2017 May; 5(2):. PubMed ID: 28970438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. When I say … Likert item.
    Krupat E
    Med Educ; 2022 Feb; 56(2):149-150. PubMed ID: 34490643
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. An Empirical Comparison of Factor, Image, Component, and Scale Scores.
    Fava JL; Velicer WF
    Multivariate Behav Res; 1992 Jul; 27(3):301-22. PubMed ID: 26789785
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales.
    Sullivan GM; Artino AR
    J Grad Med Educ; 2013 Dec; 5(4):541-2. PubMed ID: 24454995
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Identifying and analyzing likert scales.
    Castleberry A; Peeters MJ
    Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2023 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 37620207
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.