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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29052956)

  • 1. Meta-analysis of full ROC curves using bivariate time-to-event models for interval-censored data.
    Hoyer A; Hirt S; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):62-72. PubMed ID: 29052956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Meta-analysis of full ROC curves with flexible parametric distributions of diagnostic test values.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Mar; 11(2):301-313. PubMed ID: 31953903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Meta-analysis of full ROC curves: Additional flexibility by using semiparametric distributions of diagnostic test values.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Dec; 10(4):528-538. PubMed ID: 31231986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Meta-analysis of ROC curves.
    Kester AD; Buntinx F
    Med Decis Making; 2000; 20(4):430-9. PubMed ID: 11059476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mixture models in diagnostic meta-analyses--clustering summary receiver operating characteristic curves accounted for heterogeneity and correlation.
    Schlattmann P; Verba M; Dewey M; Walther M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 68(1):61-72. PubMed ID: 25441701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Summary ROC curve based on a weighted Youden index for selecting an optimal cutpoint in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.
    Rücker G; Schumacher M
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3069-78. PubMed ID: 21170902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Multivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds.
    Hamza TH; Arends LR; van Houwelingen HC; Stijnen T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2009 Nov; 9():73. PubMed ID: 19903336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves.
    Arends LR; Hamza TH; van Houwelingen JC; Heijenbrok-Kal MH; Hunink MG; Stijnen T
    Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(5):621-38. PubMed ID: 18591542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX.
    Menke J
    Methods Inf Med; 2010; 49(1):54-62, 62-4. PubMed ID: 19936437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.
    Reitsma JB; Glas AS; Rutjes AW; Scholten RJ; Bossuyt PM; Zwinderman AH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Oct; 58(10):982-90. PubMed ID: 16168343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An empirical comparison of three methods for multiple cutoff diagnostic test meta-analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression screening tool using published data vs individual level data.
    Benedetti A; Levis B; Rücker G; Jones HE; Schumacher M; Ioannidis JPA; Thombs B;
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Nov; 11(6):833-848. PubMed ID: 32896096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The partial area under the summary ROC curve.
    Walter SD
    Stat Med; 2005 Jul; 24(13):2025-40. PubMed ID: 15900606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of bivariate, multivariate random-effects, and Poisson correlated gamma-frailty models to meta-analyze individual patient data of ordinal scale diagnostic tests.
    Simoneau G; Levis B; Cuijpers P; Ioannidis JPA; Patten SB; Shrier I; Bombardier CH; de Lima Osório F; Fann JR; Gjerdingen D; Lamers F; Lotrakul M; Löwe B; Shaaban J; Stafford L; van Weert HCPM; Whooley MA; Wittkampf KA; Yeung AS; Thombs BD; Benedetti A
    Biom J; 2017 Nov; 59(6):1317-1338. PubMed ID: 28692782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Electronic health record phenotyping improves detection and screening of type 2 diabetes in the general United States population: A cross-sectional, unselected, retrospective study.
    Anderson AE; Kerr WT; Thames A; Li T; Xiao J; Cohen MS
    J Biomed Inform; 2016 Apr; 60():162-8. PubMed ID: 26707455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholds.
    Dukic V; Gatsonis C
    Biometrics; 2003 Dec; 59(4):936-46. PubMed ID: 14969472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Meta-analysis for the comparison of two diagnostic tests to a common gold standard: A generalized linear mixed model approach.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 May; 27(5):1410-1421. PubMed ID: 27487844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of univariate and bivariate models in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Foxlee N; Stone JC; Doi SA
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Mar; 13(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 25734862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence diagnostics and outlier detection for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Matsushima Y; Noma H; Yamada T; Furukawa TA
    Res Synth Methods; 2020 Mar; 11(2):237-247. PubMed ID: 31724796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Time-dependent summary receiver operating characteristics for meta-analysis of prognostic studies.
    Hattori S; Zhou XH
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(26):4746-4763. PubMed ID: 27397119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.