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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25913670)

  • 1. Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis.
    Terluin B; Eekhout I; Terwee CB; de Vet HC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1388-96. PubMed ID: 25913670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The anchor-based minimal important change, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis or predictive modeling, may need to be adjusted for the proportion of improved patients.
    Terluin B; Eekhout I; Terwee CB
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Mar; 83():90-100. PubMed ID: 28093262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach.
    de Vet HC; Ostelo RW; Terwee CB; van der Roer N; Knol DL; Beckerman H; Boers M; Bouter LM
    Qual Life Res; 2007 Feb; 16(1):131-42. PubMed ID: 17033901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values.
    de Vet HC; Terluin B; Knol DL; Roorda LD; Mokkink LB; Ostelo RW; Hendriks EJ; Bouter LM; Terwee CB
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Jan; 63(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 19540720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Interpretability of change in the Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire: minimal important change and smallest detectable change.
    Gärtner FR; Nieuwenhuijsen K; van Dijk FJ; Sluiter JK
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Dec; 65(12):1337-47. PubMed ID: 22974498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improved adjusted minimal important change took reliability of transition ratings into account.
    Terluin B; Eekhout I; Terwee CB
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Aug; 148():48-53. PubMed ID: 35436522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Minimally important change values of a measurement instrument depend more on baseline values than on the type of intervention.
    de Vet HC; Foumani M; Scholten MA; Jacobs WC; Stiggelbout AM; Knol DL; Peul WC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 May; 68(5):518-24. PubMed ID: 25544741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prediction of outcomes in trauma: anatomic or physiologic parameters?
    Guzzo JL; Bochicchio GV; Napolitano LM; Malone DL; Meyer W; Scalea TM
    J Am Coll Surg; 2005 Dec; 201(6):891-7. PubMed ID: 16310692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A direct method to evaluate the time-dependent predictive accuracy for biomarkers.
    Shen W; Ning J; Yuan Y
    Biometrics; 2015 Jun; 71(2):439-49. PubMed ID: 25758584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of regression trees, logistic regression, generalized additive models, and multivariate adaptive regression splines for predicting AMI mortality.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2007 Jul; 26(15):2937-57. PubMed ID: 17186501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Bayesian bootstrap estimation of ROC curve.
    Gu J; Ghosal S; Roy A
    Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5407-20. PubMed ID: 18613217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don't stratify on the baseline score!
    Terluin B; Roos EM; Terwee CB; Thorlund JB; Ingelsrud LH
    Qual Life Res; 2021 Oct; 30(10):2773-2782. PubMed ID: 34041680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessing the responsiveness of measures of oral health-related quality of life.
    Locker D; Jokovic A; Clarke M
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 2004 Feb; 32(1):10-8. PubMed ID: 14961835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Prediction of an outcome using trajectories estimated from a linear mixed model.
    Maruyama N; Takahashi F; Takeuchi M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Sep; 19(5):779-90. PubMed ID: 20183443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Diagnostic accuracy measures.
    Eusebi P
    Cerebrovasc Dis; 2013; 36(4):267-72. PubMed ID: 24135733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A new parametric method based on S-distributions for computing receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous diagnostic tests.
    Sorribas A; March J; Trujillano J
    Stat Med; 2002 May; 21(9):1213-35. PubMed ID: 12111875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: the forgotten lesson of pythagoras. theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status.
    Froud R; Abel G
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(12):e114468. PubMed ID: 25474472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference.
    Turner D; Schünemann HJ; Griffith LE; Beaton DE; Griffiths AM; Critch JN; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Apr; 62(4):374-9. PubMed ID: 19013766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The benefits of including clinical factors in rectal normal tissue complication probability modeling after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
    Defraene G; Van den Bergh L; Al-Mamgani A; Haustermans K; Heemsbergen W; Van den Heuvel F; Lebesque JV
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2012 Mar; 82(3):1233-42. PubMed ID: 21664059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Development and validation of a general population renal risk score.
    Halbesma N; Jansen DF; Heymans MW; Stolk RP; de Jong PE; Gansevoort RT;
    Clin J Am Soc Nephrol; 2011 Jul; 6(7):1731-8. PubMed ID: 21734089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.