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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28553242)

  • 1. Comparison of Different LGM-Based Methods with MAR and MNAR Dropout Data.
    Li M; Chen N; Cui Y; Liu H
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():722. PubMed ID: 28553242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A 'missing not at random' (MNAR) and 'missing at random' (MAR) growth model comparison with a buprenorphine/naloxone clinical trial.
    McPherson S; Barbosa-Leiker C; Mamey MR; McDonell M; Enders CK; Roll J
    Addiction; 2015 Jan; 110(1):51-8. PubMed ID: 25170740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Sensitivity analyses for data missing at random versus missing not at random using latent growth modelling: a practical guide for randomised controlled trials.
    Staudt A; Freyer-Adam J; Ittermann T; Meyer C; Bischof G; John U; Baumann S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Sep; 22(1):250. PubMed ID: 36153489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Heckman imputation models for binary or continuous MNAR outcomes and MAR predictors.
    Galimard JE; Chevret S; Curis E; Resche-Rigon M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Aug; 18(1):90. PubMed ID: 30170561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A hybrid return to baseline imputation method to incorporate MAR and MNAR dropout missingness.
    Jin M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2022 Sep; 120():106859. PubMed ID: 35872135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. BayesMetab: treatment of missing values in metabolomic studies using a Bayesian modeling approach.
    Shah J; Brock GN; Gaskins J
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Dec; 20(Suppl 24):673. PubMed ID: 31861984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Trial arm outcome variance difference after dropout as an indicator of missing-not-at-random bias in randomized controlled trials.
    Hazewinkel AD; Tilling K; Wade KH; Palmer T
    Biom J; 2023 Dec; 65(8):e2200116. PubMed ID: 37727079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Treatment effects in randomized longitudinal trials with different types of nonignorable dropout.
    Yang M; Maxwell SE
    Psychol Methods; 2014 Jun; 19(2):188-210. PubMed ID: 24079928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Bayesian Latent Variable Selection Model for Nonignorable Missingness.
    Du H; Enders C; Keller BT; Bradbury TN; Karney BR
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2022; 57(2-3):478-512. PubMed ID: 33529056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Score test for missing at random or not under logistic missingness models.
    Wang H; Lu Z; Liu Y
    Biometrics; 2023 Jun; 79(2):1268-1279. PubMed ID: 35348206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A multiple imputation approach for MNAR mechanisms compatible with Heckman's model.
    Galimard JE; Chevret S; Protopopescu C; Resche-Rigon M
    Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(17):2907-20. PubMed ID: 26893215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Data Missing Not at Random in Mobile Health Research: Assessment of the Problem and a Case for Sensitivity Analyses.
    Goldberg SB; Bolt DM; Davidson RJ
    J Med Internet Res; 2021 Jun; 23(6):e26749. PubMed ID: 34128810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of a weighting approach for performing sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation.
    Rezvan PH; White IR; Lee KJ; Carlin JB; Simpson JA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Oct; 15():83. PubMed ID: 26464305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Issues with the expected information matrix of linear mixed models provided by popular statistical packages under missingness at random dropout.
    Thomadakis C; Pantazis N; Touloumi G
    Stat Med; 2023 Jul; 42(16):2873-2885. PubMed ID: 37094843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Longitudinal and time-to-drop-out joint models can lead to seriously biased estimates when the drop-out mechanism is at random.
    Thomadakis C; Meligkotsidou L; Pantazis N; Touloumi G
    Biometrics; 2019 Mar; 75(1):58-68. PubMed ID: 30357814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Approaches for missing covariate data in logistic regression with MNAR sensitivity analyses.
    Ward RC; Axon RN; Gebregziabher M
    Biom J; 2020 Jul; 62(4):1025-1037. PubMed ID: 31957905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Missing not at random models for latent growth curve analyses.
    Enders CK
    Psychol Methods; 2011 Mar; 16(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 21381816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A Realistic Evaluation of Methods for Handling Missing Data When There is a Mixture of MCAR, MAR, and MNAR Mechanisms in the Same Dataset.
    Gomer B; Yuan KH
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(5):988-1013. PubMed ID: 36599049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Missing not at random in end of life care studies: multiple imputation and sensitivity analysis on data from the ACTION study.
    Carreras G; Miccinesi G; Wilcock A; Preston N; Nieboer D; Deliens L; Groenvold M; Lunder U; van der Heide A; Baccini M;
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Jan; 21(1):13. PubMed ID: 33422019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Maximum likelihood versus multiple imputation for missing data in small longitudinal samples with nonnormality.
    Shin T; Davison ML; Long JD
    Psychol Methods; 2017 Sep; 22(3):426-449. PubMed ID: 27709974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.