151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30273405)
1. Comparison of the modified unbounded penalty and the LASSO to select predictive genes of response to chemotherapy in breast cancer.
Collignon O; Han J; An H; Oh S; Lee Y
PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0204897. PubMed ID: 30273405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. High-dimensional Cox models: the choice of penalty as part of the model building process.
Benner A; Zucknick M; Hielscher T; Ittrich C; Mansmann U
Biom J; 2010 Feb; 52(1):50-69. PubMed ID: 20166132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. AucPR: an AUC-based approach using penalized regression for disease prediction with high-dimensional omics data.
Yu W; Park T
BMC Genomics; 2014; 15 Suppl 10(Suppl 10):S1. PubMed ID: 25559769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Incorporating prior biological knowledge for network-based differential gene expression analysis using differentially weighted graphical LASSO.
Zuo Y; Cui Y; Yu G; Li R; Ressom HW
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Feb; 18(1):99. PubMed ID: 28187708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Building interpretable predictive models for pediatric hospital readmission using Tree-Lasso logistic regression.
Jovanovic M; Radovanovic S; Vukicevic M; Van Poucke S; Delibasic B
Artif Intell Med; 2016 Sep; 72():12-21. PubMed ID: 27664505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Robust estimation of the expected survival probabilities from high-dimensional Cox models with biomarker-by-treatment interactions in randomized clinical trials.
Ternès N; Rotolo F; Michiels S
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 May; 17(1):83. PubMed ID: 28532387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The lasso--a novel method for predictive covariate model building in nonlinear mixed effects models.
Ribbing J; Nyberg J; Caster O; Jonsson EN
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn; 2007 Aug; 34(4):485-517. PubMed ID: 17516152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Predictions of the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary breast cancer using a data mining technique.
Takada M; Sugimoto M; Ohno S; Kuroi K; Sato N; Bando H; Masuda N; Iwata H; Kondo M; Sasano H; Chow LW; Inamoto T; Naito Y; Tomita M; Toi M
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 Jul; 134(2):661-70. PubMed ID: 22689089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prediction of chemo-response in serous ovarian cancer.
Gonzalez Bosquet J; Newtson AM; Chung RK; Thiel KW; Ginader T; Goodheart MJ; Leslie KK; Smith BJ
Mol Cancer; 2016 Oct; 15(1):66. PubMed ID: 27756408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. IPF-LASSO: Integrative
Boulesteix AL; De Bin R; Jiang X; Fuchs M
Comput Math Methods Med; 2017; 2017():7691937. PubMed ID: 28546826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Preventing Heterotopic Ossification in Combat Casualties-Which Models Are Best Suited for Clinical Use?
Alfieri KA; Potter BK; Davis TA; Wagner MB; Elster EA; Forsberg JA
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2015 Sep; 473(9):2807-13. PubMed ID: 25917420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Direct comparison of logistic regression and recursive partitioning to predict chemotherapy response of breast cancer based on clinical pathological variables.
Rouzier R; Coutant C; Lesieur B; Mazouni C; Incitti R; Natowicz R; Pusztai L
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 Sep; 117(2):325-31. PubMed ID: 19152025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mixture classification model based on clinical markers for breast cancer prognosis.
Zeng T; Liu J
Artif Intell Med; 2010; 48(2-3):129-37. PubMed ID: 20005686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. NCC-AUC: an AUC optimization method to identify multi-biomarker panel for cancer prognosis from genomic and clinical data.
Zou M; Liu Z; Zhang XS; Wang Y
Bioinformatics; 2015 Oct; 31(20):3330-8. PubMed ID: 26092859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A nomogram for individual prediction of vascular invasion in primary breast cancer.
Ouyang FS; Guo BL; Huang XY; Ouyang LZ; Zhou CR; Zhang R; Wu ML; Yang ZS; Wu SK; Guo TD; Yang SM; Hu QG
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 110():30-38. PubMed ID: 30599870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An empirical approach to model selection through validation for censored survival data.
Choi I; Wells BJ; Yu C; Kattan MW
J Biomed Inform; 2011 Aug; 44(4):595-606. PubMed ID: 21335102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predicting radiation-induced valvular heart damage.
Cella L; Oh JH; Deasy JO; Palma G; Liuzzi R; D'avino V; Conson M; Picardi M; Salvatore M; Pacelli R
Acta Oncol; 2015 Nov; 54(10):1796-804. PubMed ID: 25800857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Empirical extensions of the lasso penalty to reduce the false discovery rate in high-dimensional Cox regression models.
Ternès N; Rotolo F; Michiels S
Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(15):2561-73. PubMed ID: 26970107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. External validation of a publicly available computer assisted diagnostic tool for mammographic mass lesions with two high prevalence research datasets.
Benndorf M; Burnside ES; Herda C; Langer M; Kotter E
Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4987-96. PubMed ID: 26233224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Predicting response to preoperative chemotherapy agents by identifying drug action on modeled microRNA regulation networks.
Zhu L; Liu J; Liang F; Rayner S; Xiong J
PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e98140. PubMed ID: 24848634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
