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 *

92 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27619730)

  • 21. Novel head and neck cancer survival analysis approach: random survival forests versus Cox proportional hazards regression.
    Datema FR; Moya A; Krause P; Bäck T; Willmes L; Langeveld T; Baatenburg de Jong RJ; Blom HM
    Head Neck; 2012 Jan; 34(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 21322080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Unbiased split variable selection for random survival forests using maximally selected rank statistics.
    Wright MN; Dankowski T; Ziegler A
    Stat Med; 2017 Apr; 36(8):1272-1284. PubMed ID: 28088842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Threshold regression for survival data with time-varying covariates.
    Lee ML; Whitmore GA; Rosner BA
    Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(7-8):896-905. PubMed ID: 20213704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Bayesian proportional hazards model with time-varying regression coefficients: a penalized Poisson regression approach.
    Lambert P; Eilers PH
    Stat Med; 2005 Dec; 24(24):3977-89. PubMed ID: 16320263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Analysis of time-dependent covariates in a regressive relative survival model.
    Giorgi R; Gouvernet J
    Stat Med; 2005 Dec; 24(24):3863-70. PubMed ID: 16320266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Training artificial neural networks directly on the concordance index for censored data using genetic algorithms.
    Kalderstam J; Edén P; Bendahl PO; Strand C; Fernö M; Ohlsson M
    Artif Intell Med; 2013 Jun; 58(2):125-32. PubMed ID: 23582884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Assessing time-by-covariate interactions in relative survival models using restrictive cubic spline functions.
    Bolard P; Quantin C; Abrahamowicz M; Esteve J; Giorgi R; Chadha-Boreham H; Binquet C; Faivre J
    J Cancer Epidemiol Prev; 2002; 7(3):113-22. PubMed ID: 12665210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Approaches in modelling long-term survival: an application to breast cancer.
    Perperoglou A; Keramopoullos A; van Houwelingen HC
    Stat Med; 2007 Jun; 26(13):2666-85. PubMed ID: 17072918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of methods for estimating the attributable risk in the context of survival analysis.
    Gassama M; Bénichou J; Dartois L; Thiébaut AC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):10. PubMed ID: 28114895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Simulating survival data with predefined censoring rates for proportional hazards models.
    Wan F
    Stat Med; 2017 Feb; 36(5):838-854. PubMed ID: 27873333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A flexible approach to the crossing hazards problem.
    Muggeo VM; Tagliavia M
    Stat Med; 2010 Aug; 29(18):1947-57. PubMed ID: 20680987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Fitting additive hazards models for case-cohort studies: a multiple imputation approach.
    Jung J; Harel O; Kang S
    Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(17):2975-90. PubMed ID: 26194861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Data generation for the Cox proportional hazards model with time-dependent covariates: a method for medical researchers.
    Hendry DJ
    Stat Med; 2014 Feb; 33(3):436-54. PubMed ID: 24014094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A new approach to modelling interactions between treatment and continuous covariates in clinical trials by using fractional polynomials.
    Royston P; Sauerbrei W
    Stat Med; 2004 Aug; 23(16):2509-25. PubMed ID: 15287081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Flexible Bayesian excess hazard models using low-rank thin plate splines.
    Quaresma M; Carpenter J; Rachet B
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Jun; 29(6):1700-1714. PubMed ID: 31502511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluating survival model performance: a graphical approach.
    Mandel M; Galai N; Simchen E
    Stat Med; 2005 Jun; 24(12):1933-45. PubMed ID: 15806618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Modelling survival in acute severe illness: Cox versus accelerated failure time models.
    Moran JL; Bersten AD; Solomon PJ; Edibam C; Hunt T;
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Feb; 14(1):83-93. PubMed ID: 18211649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Goodness-of-fit test for monotone proportional subdistribution hazards assumptions based on weighted residuals.
    Boher JM; Filleron T; Giorgi R; Kramar A; Cook RJ
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):362-377. PubMed ID: 27790725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Testing the proportional hazards assumption in case-cohort analysis.
    Xue X; Xie X; Gunter M; Rohan TE; Wassertheil-Smoller S; Ho GY; Cirillo D; Yu H; Strickler HD
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Jul; 13():88. PubMed ID: 23834739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Variables with time-varying effects and the Cox model: some statistical concepts illustrated with a prognostic factor study in breast cancer.
    Bellera CA; MacGrogan G; Debled M; de Lara CT; Brouste V; Mathoulin-Pélissier S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Mar; 10():20. PubMed ID: 20233435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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