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 *

159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28612356)

  • 1. Assessing the influence of rater and subject characteristics on measures of agreement for ordinal ratings.
    Nelson KP; Mitani AA; Edwards D
    Stat Med; 2017 Sep; 36(20):3181-3199. PubMed ID: 28612356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluating the effects of rater and subject factors on measures of association.
    Nelson KP; Mitani AA; Edwards D
    Biom J; 2018 May; 60(3):639-656. PubMed ID: 29349801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A measure of association for ordered categorical data in population-based studies.
    Nelson KP; Edwards D
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):812-831. PubMed ID: 27184590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Summary measures of agreement and association between many raters' ordinal classifications.
    Mitani AA; Freer PE; Nelson KP
    Ann Epidemiol; 2017 Oct; 27(10):677-685.e4. PubMed ID: 29029991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Measures of agreement between many raters for ordinal classifications.
    Nelson KP; Edwards D
    Stat Med; 2015 Oct; 34(23):3116-32. PubMed ID: 26095449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improving the reliability of diagnostic tests in population-based agreement studies.
    Nelson KP; Edwards D
    Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(6):617-26. PubMed ID: 20128018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quantifying rater variation for ordinal data using a rating scale model.
    Zhang S; Petersen JH
    Stat Med; 2018 Jun; 37(14):2223-2237. PubMed ID: 29663479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validity and reliability of exposure assessors' ratings of exposure intensity by type of occupational questionnaire and type of rater.
    Friesen MC; Coble JB; Katki HA; Ji BT; Xue S; Lu W; Stewart PA
    Ann Occup Hyg; 2011 Jul; 55(6):601-11. PubMed ID: 21511891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Statistical description of interrater variability in ordinal ratings.
    Nelson JC; Pepe MS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2000 Oct; 9(5):475-96. PubMed ID: 11191261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A unified approach for assessing agreement for continuous and categorical data.
    Lin L; Hedayat AS; Wu W
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(4):629-52. PubMed ID: 17613645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Women's features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN).
    Pérez-Gómez B; Ruiz F; Martínez I; Casals M; Miranda J; Sánchez-Contador C; Vidal C; Llobet R; Pollán M; Salas D
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 Feb; 132(1):287-95. PubMed ID: 22042363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Log-linear non-uniform association models for agreement between two ratings on an ordinal scale.
    Valet F; Guinot C; Mary JY
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(3):647-62. PubMed ID: 16538701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Modeling rater diagnostic skills in binary classification processes.
    Lin X; Chen H; Edwards D; Nelson KP
    Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(4):557-571. PubMed ID: 29094378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Simultaneous estimation of intrarater and interrater agreement for multiple raters under order restrictions for a binary trait.
    Lester Kirchner H; Lemke JH
    Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(12):1761-72. PubMed ID: 12111910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Specific agreement on ordinal and multiple nominal outcomes can be calculated for more than two raters.
    de Vet HCW; Mullender MG; Eekhout I
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Apr; 96():47-53. PubMed ID: 29217452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A new permutation-based method for assessing agreement between two observers making replicated binary readings.
    Pan Y; Haber M; Barnhart HX
    Stat Med; 2011 Apr; 30(8):839-53. PubMed ID: 21432878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A crossed random effects modeling approach for estimating diagnostic accuracy from ordinal ratings without a gold standard.
    Xie Y; Chen Z; Albert PS
    Stat Med; 2013 Sep; 32(20):3472-85. PubMed ID: 23529923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale across multiple raters: benefits of a structured interview.
    Wilson JT; Hareendran A; Hendry A; Potter J; Bone I; Muir KW
    Stroke; 2005 Apr; 36(4):777-81. PubMed ID: 15718510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing rater agreement using marginal association models.
    Perkins SM; Becker MP
    Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(12):1743-60. PubMed ID: 12111909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A mixture model approach to indexing rater agreement.
    Schuster C
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2002 Nov; 55(Pt 2):289-303. PubMed ID: 12473229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.