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 *

286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29194715)

  • 1. Estimating the DINA model parameters using the No-U-Turn Sampler.
    da Silva MA; de Oliveira ESB; von Davier AA; Bazán JL
    Biom J; 2018 Mar; 60(2):352-368. PubMed ID: 29194715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bayesian Estimation of the DINA Q matrix.
    Chen Y; Culpepper SA; Chen Y; Douglas J
    Psychometrika; 2018 Mar; 83(1):89-108. PubMed ID: 28861685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Performance of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and No-U-Turn Sampler for estimating genetic parameters and breeding values.
    Nishio M; Arakawa A
    Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Dec; 51(1):73. PubMed ID: 31823719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating CDMs Using the Slice-Within-Gibbs Sampler.
    Xu X; de la Torre J; Zhang J; Guo J; Shi N
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():2260. PubMed ID: 33101108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cognitive diagnosis modelling incorporating item response times.
    Zhan P; Jiao H; Liao D
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2018 May; 71(2):262-286. PubMed ID: 28872185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Constrained Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro Algorithm for Q Matrix Estimation in DINA Models.
    Liu CW; Andersson B; Skrondal A
    Psychometrika; 2020 Jun; 85(2):322-357. PubMed ID: 32632838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo to estimate the log-linear cognitive diagnosis model via Stan.
    Jiang Z; Carter R
    Behav Res Methods; 2019 Apr; 51(2):651-662. PubMed ID: 29949073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bayesian Estimation of the DINA Model With Pólya-Gamma Gibbs Sampling.
    Zhang Z; Zhang J; Lu J; Tao J
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():384. PubMed ID: 32210894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Inferring the Number of Attributes for the Exploratory DINA Model.
    Chen Y; Liu Y; Culpepper SA; Chen Y
    Psychometrika; 2021 Mar; 86(1):30-64. PubMed ID: 33751367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Exploring Multiple Strategic Problem Solving Behaviors in Educational Psychology Research by Using Mixture Cognitive Diagnosis Model.
    Zhang J; Lu J; Yang J; Zhang Z; Sun S
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():568348. PubMed ID: 34149491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The accuracy and consistency of mastery for each content domain using the Rasch and deterministic inputs, noisy “and” gate diagnostic classification models: a simulation study and a real-world analysis using data from the Korean Medical Licensing Examination.
    Seo DG; Kim JK
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2021; 18():15. PubMed ID: 34225413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A classification model for continuous responses: Identifying risk perception groups on health-related activities.
    de Oliveira ESB; Wang X; Bazán JL
    Biom J; 2023 Apr; 65(4):e2100222. PubMed ID: 36782079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Scalable Bayesian Approach for the Dina Q-Matrix Estimation Combining Stochastic Optimization and Variational Inference.
    Oka M; Okada K
    Psychometrika; 2023 Mar; 88(1):302-331. PubMed ID: 36097246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. On the Link between Cognitive Diagnostic Models and Knowledge Space Theory.
    Heller J; Stefanutti L; Anselmi P; Robusto E
    Psychometrika; 2015 Dec; 80(4):995-1019. PubMed ID: 25838246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Bayesian mixture modelling with ranked set samples.
    Alvandi A; Omidvar S; Hatefi A; Jafari Jozani M; Ozturk O; Nematollahi N
    Stat Med; 2024 Aug; 43(19):3723-3741. PubMed ID: 38890118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Metropolis sampling in pedigree analysis.
    Sobel E; Lange K
    Stat Methods Med Res; 1993; 2(3):263-82. PubMed ID: 8261261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An empirical Q-matrix validation method for the sequential generalized DINA model.
    Ma W; de la Torre J
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2020 Feb; 73(1):142-163. PubMed ID: 30723890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Stochastic search item selection for factor analytic models.
    Mavridis D; Ntzoufras I
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 May; 67(2):284-303. PubMed ID: 23837882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimation of item parameters and examinees' mastery probability in each domain of the Korean medical licensing examination using deterministic inputs, noisy and gate(DINA) model.
    Choi Y; Seo DG
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2020; 17():35. PubMed ID: 33197992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Reduced RUM as a Logit Model: Parameterization and Constraints.
    Chiu CY; Köhn HF
    Psychometrika; 2016 Jun; 81(2):350-70. PubMed ID: 25838247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.