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 *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26048903)

  • 21. Interval estimation for a proportion using a double-sampling scheme with two fallible classifiers.
    Qiu SF; Lian H; Zou GY; Zeng XS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Aug; 27(8):2478-2503. PubMed ID: 27932666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The UMP Exact Test and the Confidence Interval for Person Parameters in IRT Models.
    Liu X; Han Z; Johnson MS
    Psychometrika; 2018 Mar; 83(1):182-202. PubMed ID: 28836133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. New method to estimate the sample size for calculation of a proportion assuming binomial distribution.
    Vallejo A; Muniesa A; Ferreira C; de Blas I
    Res Vet Sci; 2013 Oct; 95(2):405-9. PubMed ID: 23623739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Confidence Intervals for Asbestos Fiber Counts: Approximate Negative Binomial Distribution.
    Bartley D; Slaven J; Harper M
    Ann Work Expo Health; 2017 Mar; 61(2):237-247. PubMed ID: 28395351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Testing microbiologic response to antiinfective medications with incomplete data.
    Phillips KF
    J Biopharm Stat; 2001 Nov; 11(4):237-52. PubMed ID: 12018778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Non-parametric hypothesis testing and confidence intervals with doubly censored data.
    Chen K; Zhou M
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2003 Mar; 9(1):71-91. PubMed ID: 12602775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Statistical inference on categorical variables.
    Perkins SM
    Methods Mol Biol; 2007; 404():73-88. PubMed ID: 18450046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Confidence intervals for confirmatory adaptive two-stage designs with treatment selection.
    Bebu I; Dragalin V; Luta G
    Biom J; 2013 May; 55(3):294-309. PubMed ID: 23553644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Symmetry in square contingency tables: tests of hypotheses and confidence interval construction.
    May WL; Johnson WD
    J Biopharm Stat; 2001; 11(1-2):23-33. PubMed ID: 11459440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Fast likelihood-based inference for latent count models using the saddlepoint approximation.
    Zhang W; Bravington MV; Fewster RM
    Biometrics; 2019 Sep; 75(3):723-733. PubMed ID: 30690707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Analyzing bivariate continuous data grouped into categories defined by empirical quantiles of marginal distributions.
    Borkowf CB; Gail MH; Carroll RJ; Gill RD
    Biometrics; 1997 Sep; 53(3):1054-69. PubMed ID: 9290229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A discussion on significance indices for contingency tables under small sample sizes.
    Oliveira NL; Pereira CAB; Diniz MA; Polpo A
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0199102. PubMed ID: 30071022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Confidence intervals construction for difference of two means with incomplete correlated data.
    Li HQ; Tang NS; Yi JY
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Mar; 16():31. PubMed ID: 26969507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Binomial distribution sample confidence intervals estimation for positive and negative likelihood ratio medical key parameters.
    Bolboacă S; Jäntschi L
    AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2005; 2005():66-70. PubMed ID: 16779003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Confidence intervals for the difference in paired Youden indices.
    Zhou H; Qin G
    Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(1):17-27. PubMed ID: 23090764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of tests of contingency tables.
    Amiri S; Modarres R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(5):784-796. PubMed ID: 27936354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A revisit to contingency table and tests of independence: bootstrap is preferred to Chi-square approximations as well as Fisher's exact test.
    Lin JJ; Chang CH; Pal N
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):438-58. PubMed ID: 24905809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of multinomial and binomial proportion methods for analysis of multinomial count data.
    Galyean ML; Wester DB
    J Anim Sci; 2010 Oct; 88(10):3452-63. PubMed ID: 20601524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Multinomial N-mixture models for removal sampling.
    Haines LM
    Biometrics; 2020 Jun; 76(2):540-548. PubMed ID: 31513284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Assessment of predictive performance in incomplete data by combining internal validation and multiple imputation.
    Wahl S; Boulesteix AL; Zierer A; Thorand B; van de Wiel MA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Oct; 16(1):144. PubMed ID: 27782817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.