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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27862121)

  • 1. Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making.
    Stone ER; Bruine de Bruin W; Wilkins AM; Boker EM; MacDonald Gibson J
    Risk Anal; 2017 Apr; 37(4):612-628. PubMed ID: 27862121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of Numerical Versus Foreground-Only Icon Displays on Understanding of Risk Magnitudes.
    Stone ER; Gabard AR; Groves AE; Lipkus IM
    J Health Commun; 2015; 20(10):1230-41. PubMed ID: 26065633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Designing Graphs that Promote Both Risk Understanding and Behavior Change.
    Okan Y; Stone ER; Bruine de Bruin W
    Risk Anal; 2018 May; 38(5):929-946. PubMed ID: 28973820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground-Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities.
    Okan Y; Stone ER; Parillo J; Bruine de Bruin W; Parker AM
    Risk Anal; 2020 Apr; 40(4):771-788. PubMed ID: 31907975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Communicating quantitative information about unexploded ordnance risks to the public.
    MacDonald Gibson J; Rowe A; Stone ER; Bruine de Bruin W
    Environ Sci Technol; 2013 May; 47(9):4004-13. PubMed ID: 23514101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice.
    Oudhoff JP; Timmermans DR
    Med Decis Making; 2015 May; 35(4):487-500. PubMed ID: 25769496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The visual communication of risk.
    Lipkus IM; Hollands JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1999; (25):149-63. PubMed ID: 10854471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences.
    Price M; Cameron R; Butow P
    Patient Educ Couns; 2007 Dec; 69(1-3):121-8. PubMed ID: 17905553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences.
    Tiede KE; Gaissmaier W
    Med Decis Making; 2023; 43(7-8):803-820. PubMed ID: 37842816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bar and line graph comprehension: an interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes.
    Shah P; Freedman EG
    Top Cogn Sci; 2011 Jul; 3(3):560-78. PubMed ID: 25164403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication.
    Schapira MM; Nattinger AB; McAuliffe TL
    J Health Commun; 2006 Sep; 11(6):569-82. PubMed ID: 16950729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Display of major risk categories for android apps.
    Chen J; Ge H; Moore S; Yang W; Li N; Proctor RW
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2018 Sep; 24(3):306-330. PubMed ID: 29927274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of cognitive load on decision making with graphically displayed uncertainty information.
    Allen PM; Edwards JA; Snyder FJ; Makinson KA; Hamby DM
    Risk Anal; 2014 Aug; 34(8):1495-505. PubMed ID: 24354944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A new graphical format to communicate treatment effects to patients-A web-based randomized controlled trial.
    Kasper J; van de Roemer A; Pöttgen J; Rahn A; Backhus I; Bay Y; Köpke S; Heesen C
    Health Expect; 2017 Aug; 20(4):797-804. PubMed ID: 27981688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Decision making for risk management: a comparison of graphical methods for presenting quantitative uncertainty.
    Edwards JA; Snyder FJ; Allen PM; Makinson KA; Hamby DM
    Risk Anal; 2012 Dec; 32(12):2055-70. PubMed ID: 22616656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy.
    Reyna VF; Farley F
    Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2006 Sep; 7(1):1-44. PubMed ID: 26158695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical information displays to improve ICU outcomes.
    Effken JA; Loeb RG; Kang Y; Lin ZC
    Int J Med Inform; 2008 Nov; 77(11):765-77. PubMed ID: 18639487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Examining Insensitivity to Probability in Evidence-Based Communication of Relative Risks: The Role of Affect and Communication Format.
    Heard CL; Rakow T
    Risk Anal; 2022 Oct; 42(10):2145-2159. PubMed ID: 34839529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats.
    Henneman L; van Asperen CJ; Oosterwijk JC; Menko FH; Claassen L; Timmermans DR
    Patient Prefer Adherence; 2020; 14():333-342. PubMed ID: 32109999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Graph is Worth a Thousand Words: How Overconfidence and Graphical Disclosure of Numerical Information Influence Financial Analysts Accuracy on Decision Making.
    Cardoso RL; Leite RO; de Aquino AC
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(8):e0160443. PubMed ID: 27508519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.