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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29663479)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Assessing and quantifying inter-rater variation for dichotomous ratings using a Rasch model.
    Petersen JH; Larsen K; Kreiner S
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2012 Dec; 21(6):635-52. PubMed ID: 21177706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Measuring intrarater association between correlated ordinal ratings.
    Nelson KP; Zhou TJ; Edwards D
    Biom J; 2020 Nov; 62(7):1687-1701. PubMed ID: 32529683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Correcting for rater bias in scores on a continuous scale, with application to breast density.
    Sperrin M; Bardwell L; Sergeant JC; Astley S; Buchan I
    Stat Med; 2013 Nov; 32(26):4666-78. PubMed ID: 23674384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Measuring rater bias in diagnostic tests with ordinal ratings.
    Kim C; Lin X; Nelson KP
    Stat Med; 2021 Jul; 40(17):4014-4033. PubMed ID: 33969509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Inter-rater reliability of pressure ulcer staging: ordinal probit Bayesian hierarchical model that allows for uncertain rater response.
    Gajewski BJ; Hart S; Bergquist-Beringer S; Dunton N
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(25):4602-18. PubMed ID: 17393413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reliability of Untrained and Experienced Raters on FEES: Rating Overall Residue is a Simple Task.
    Pisegna JM; Borders JC; Kaneoka A; Coster WJ; Leonard R; Langmore SE
    Dysphagia; 2018 Oct; 33(5):645-654. PubMed ID: 29516172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Inter-rater agreement on assessment of outcome within a trauma registry.
    Ekegren CL; Hart MJ; Brown A; Gabbe BJ
    Injury; 2016 Jan; 47(1):130-4. PubMed ID: 26304002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
    Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M
    BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing agreement between multiple raters with missing rating information, applied to breast cancer tumour grading.
    Fanshawe TR; Lynch AG; Ellis IO; Green AR; Hanka R
    PLoS One; 2008 Aug; 3(8):e2925. PubMed ID: 18698346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A breast density index for digital mammograms based on radiologists' ranking.
    Boone JM; Lindfors KK; Beatty CS; Seibert JA
    J Digit Imaging; 1998 Aug; 11(3):101-15. PubMed ID: 9718500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Investigation of psychophysical similarity measures for selection of similar images in the diagnosis of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms.
    Muramatsu C; Li Q; Schmidt R; Shiraishi J; Doi K
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5695-702. PubMed ID: 19175126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Inter-observer agreement according to three methods of evaluating mammographic density and parenchymal pattern in a case control study: impact on relative risk of breast cancer.
    Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Diao P; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
    BMC Cancer; 2015 Apr; 15():274. PubMed ID: 25884160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Differences in inter-rater reliability and accuracy for a treatment adherence scale.
    Wu SM; Whiteside U; Neighbors C
    Cogn Behav Ther; 2007; 36(4):230-9. PubMed ID: 18049948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Inter- and intra-rater agreement in the assessment of the vascularity of spinal metastases using digital subtraction angiography tumor blush.
    Clausen C; Dahl B; Christiansen Frevert S; Forman JL; Nielsen MB; Lönn L
    Acta Radiol; 2017 Jun; 58(6):734-739. PubMed ID: 27650032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.