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 *

217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28151746)

  • 41. [Introduction to an individual-based standardization method -- propensity score weighting].
    Li ZW; Liu JM; Ren AG
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2010 Feb; 31(2):223-6. PubMed ID: 21215089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A comparison of entropy balance and probability weighting methods to generalize observational cohorts to a population: a simulation and empirical example.
    Harvey RA; Hayden JD; Kamble PS; Bouchard JR; Huang JC
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Apr; 26(4):368-377. PubMed ID: 27859943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Combining machine learning and matching techniques to improve causal inference in program evaluation.
    Linden A; Yarnold PR
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2016 Dec; 22(6):864-870. PubMed ID: 27353301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Comparing approaches to causal inference for longitudinal data: inverse probability weighting versus propensity scores.
    Ertefaie A; Stephens DA
    Int J Biostat; 2010; 6(2):Article 14. PubMed ID: 21969998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Bootstrap vs asymptotic variance estimation when using propensity score weighting with continuous and binary outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2022 Sep; 41(22):4426-4443. PubMed ID: 35841200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Optimizing matching and analysis combinations for estimating causal effects.
    Colson KE; Rudolph KE; Zimmerman SC; Goin DE; Stuart EA; Laan Mv; Ahern J
    Sci Rep; 2016 Mar; 6():23222. PubMed ID: 26980444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Using machine learning to assess covariate balance in matching studies.
    Linden A; Yarnold PR
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2016 Dec; 22(6):844-850. PubMed ID: 27004916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching.
    Lunt M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Jan; 179(2):226-35. PubMed ID: 24114655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The "Dry-Run" Analysis: A Method for Evaluating Risk Scores for Confounding Control.
    Wyss R; Hansen BB; Ellis AR; Gagne JJ; Desai RJ; Glynn RJ; Stürmer T
    Am J Epidemiol; 2017 May; 185(9):842-852. PubMed ID: 28338910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Insights into different results from different causal contrasts in the presence of effect-measure modification.
    Stürmer T; Rothman KJ; Glynn RJ
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2006 Oct; 15(10):698-709. PubMed ID: 16528796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Improving propensity score estimators' robustness to model misspecification using super learner.
    Pirracchio R; Petersen ML; van der Laan M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 181(2):108-19. PubMed ID: 25515168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC
    Int J Biostat; 2009 Apr; 5(1):Article 13. PubMed ID: 20949126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Propensity score interval matching: using bootstrap confidence intervals for accommodating estimation errors of propensity scores.
    Pan W; Bai H
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Jul; 15():53. PubMed ID: 26215035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The multiple propensity score for analysis of dose-response relationships in drug safety studies.
    Wang J; Donnan PT; Steinke D; MacDonald TM
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2001; 10(2):105-11. PubMed ID: 11499848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. COX-2 inhibitors--a lesson in unexpected problems.
    Drazen JM
    N Engl J Med; 2005 Mar; 352(11):1131-2. PubMed ID: 15713947
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Evaluating Propensity Score Methods in a Quasi-Experimental Study of the Impact of Menu-Labeling.
    Mayne SL; Lee BK; Auchincloss AH
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(12):e0144962. PubMed ID: 26677849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. Confounder-adjusted estimates of the risk difference using propensity score-based weighting.
    Ukoumunne OC; Williamson E; Forbes AB; Gulliford MC; Carlin JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3126-36. PubMed ID: 21170907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.