150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26765451)
1. Characterizing Decision-Analysis Performances of Risk Prediction Models Using ADAPT Curves.
Lee WC; Wu YC
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 Jan; 95(2):e2477. PubMed ID: 26765451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Using the weighted area under the net benefit curve for decision curve analysis.
Talluri R; Shete S
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2016 Jul; 16():94. PubMed ID: 27431531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. ROC curves for clinical prediction models part 1. ROC plots showed no added value above the AUC when evaluating the performance of clinical prediction models.
Verbakel JY; Steyerberg EW; Uno H; De Cock B; Wynants L; Collins GS; Van Calster B
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Oct; 126():207-216. PubMed ID: 32712176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Graphical assessment of incremental value of novel markers in prediction models: From statistical to decision analytical perspectives.
Steyerberg EW; Vedder MM; Leening MJ; Postmus D; D'Agostino RB; Van Calster B; Pencina MJ
Biom J; 2015 Jul; 57(4):556-70. PubMed ID: 25042996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.
Vickers AJ; Elkin EB
Med Decis Making; 2006; 26(6):565-74. PubMed ID: 17099194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Decision curve analysis to evaluate the clinical benefit of prediction models.
Vickers AJ; Holland F
Spine J; 2021 Oct; 21(10):1643-1648. PubMed ID: 33676020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prediction of the Pathologic Gleason Score to Inform a Personalized Management Program for Prostate Cancer.
Coley RY; Zeger SL; Mamawala M; Pienta KJ; Carter HB
Eur Urol; 2017 Jul; 72(1):135-141. PubMed ID: 27523594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves.
Baker SG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Nov; 101(22):1538-42. PubMed ID: 19843888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers.
Vickers AJ; Cronin AM; Elkin EB; Gonen M
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2008 Nov; 8():53. PubMed ID: 19036144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of three different tools for prediction of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy.
Lughezzani G; Zorn KC; Budäus L; Sun M; Lee DI; Shalhav AL; Zagaya GP; Shikanov SA; Gofrit ON; Thong AE; Albala DM; Sun L; Cronin A; Vickers AJ; Karakiewicz PI
Eur Urol; 2012 Oct; 62(4):590-6. PubMed ID: 22561078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Identifying the Most Informative Prediction Tool for Cancer-specific Mortality After Radical Prostatectomy: Comparative Analysis of Three Commonly Used Preoperative Prediction Models.
Boehm K; Larcher A; Beyer B; Tian Z; Tilki D; Steuber T; Karakiewicz PI; Heinzer H; Graefen M; Budäus L
Eur Urol; 2016 Jun; 69(6):1038-43. PubMed ID: 26272236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How to interpret a small increase in AUC with an additional risk prediction marker: decision analysis comes through.
Baker SG; Schuit E; Steyerberg EW; Pencina MJ; Vickers A; Moons KG; Mol BW; Lindeman KS
Stat Med; 2014 Sep; 33(22):3946-59. PubMed ID: 24825728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Can A Multivariate Model for Survival Estimation in Skeletal Metastases (PATHFx) Be Externally Validated Using Japanese Patients?
Ogura K; Gokita T; Shinoda Y; Kawano H; Takagi T; Ae K; Kawai A; Wedin R; Forsberg JA
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2017 Sep; 475(9):2263-2270. PubMed ID: 28560532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Decision curve analysis: a technical note.
Zhang Z; Rousson V; Lee WC; Ferdynus C; Chen M; Qian X; Guo Y;
Ann Transl Med; 2018 Aug; 6(15):308. PubMed ID: 30211196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A prospective study comparing the predictions of doctors versus models for treatment outcome of lung cancer patients: a step toward individualized care and shared decision making.
Oberije C; Nalbantov G; Dekker A; Boersma L; Borger J; Reymen B; van Baardwijk A; Wanders R; De Ruysscher D; Steyerberg E; Dingemans AM; Lambin P
Radiother Oncol; 2014 Jul; 112(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 24846083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Statistical inference for decision curve analysis, with applications to cataract diagnosis.
Sande SZ; Li J; D'Agostino R; Yin Wong T; Cheng CY
Stat Med; 2020 Sep; 39(22):2980-3002. PubMed ID: 32667093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Treating metastatic disease: Which survival model is best suited for the clinic?
Forsberg JA; Sjoberg D; Chen QR; Vickers A; Healey JH
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2013 Mar; 471(3):843-50. PubMed ID: 22983682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Application of treatment thresholds to diagnostic-test evaluation: an alternative to the comparison of areas under receiver operating characteristic curves.
Moons KG; Stijnen T; Michel BC; Büller HR; Van Es GA; Grobbee DE; Habbema JD
Med Decis Making; 1997; 17(4):447-54. PubMed ID: 9343803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Model to Identify the Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer.
Gandaglia G; Fossati N; Zaffuto E; Bandini M; Dell'Oglio P; Bravi CA; Fallara G; Pellegrino F; Nocera L; Karakiewicz PI; Tian Z; Freschi M; Montironi R; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Eur Urol; 2017 Oct; 72(4):632-640. PubMed ID: 28412062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A program for computing the prediction probability and the related receiver operating characteristic graph.
Jordan D; Steiner M; Kochs EF; Schneider G
Anesth Analg; 2010 Dec; 111(6):1416-21. PubMed ID: 21059744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
