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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27442072)

  • 1. Evaluation of subset matching methods and forms of covariate balance.
    de Los Angeles Resa M; Zubizarreta JR
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(27):4961-4979. PubMed ID: 27442072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research.
    Fortin SP; Johnston SS; Schuemie MJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 May; 21(1):109. PubMed ID: 34030640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects.
    Franklin JM; Rassen JA; Ackermann D; Bartels DB; Schneeweiss S
    Stat Med; 2014 May; 33(10):1685-99. PubMed ID: 24323618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study.
    Weymann D; Chan B; Regier DA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):181. PubMed ID: 37559105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Indirect covariate balance and residual confounding: An applied comparison of propensity score matching and cardinality matching.
    Fortin SP; Schuemie M
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2022 Dec; 31(12):1242-1252. PubMed ID: 35811396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study.
    Ali MS; Groenwold RH; Pestman WR; Belitser SV; Roes KC; Hoes AW; de Boer A; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2014 Aug; 23(8):802-11. PubMed ID: 24478163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(6):1057-69. PubMed ID: 24123228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model.
    Caruana E; Chevret S; Resche-Rigon M; Pirracchio R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1415-22.e2. PubMed ID: 26050059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Oversampling and replacement strategies in propensity score matching: a critical review focused on small sample size in clinical settings.
    Bottigliengo D; Baldi I; Lanera C; Lorenzoni G; Bejko J; Bottio T; Tarzia V; Carrozzini M; Gerosa G; Berchialla P; Gregori D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):256. PubMed ID: 34809559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimal full matching for survival outcomes: a method that merits more widespread use.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2015 Dec; 34(30):3949-67. PubMed ID: 26250611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How well can fine balance work for covariate balancing.
    Yu R
    Biometrics; 2023 Sep; 79(3):2346-2356. PubMed ID: 36222330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28454568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses.
    Sekhon JS; Grieve RD
    Health Econ; 2012 Jun; 21(6):695-714. PubMed ID: 21633989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Feb; 26(1):201-222. PubMed ID: 25038071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of machine learning algorithms and covariate balance measures for propensity score matching and weighting.
    Cannas M; Arpino B
    Biom J; 2019 Jul; 61(4):1049-1072. PubMed ID: 31090108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Optimal caliper width for propensity score matching of three treatment groups: a Monte Carlo study.
    Wang Y; Cai H; Li C; Jiang Z; Wang L; Song J; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e81045. PubMed ID: 24349029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study.
    Barrette E; Higuera L; Wherry K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38539082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.