266 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30393771)
1. Combined Performance of Screening and Variable Selection Methods in Ultra-High Dimensional Data in Predicting Time-To-Event Outcomes.
Pi L; Halabi S
Diagn Progn Res; 2018; 2():. PubMed ID: 30393771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Omics feature selection with the extended SIS R package: identification of a body mass index epigenetic multi-marker in the Strong Heart Study.
Domingo-Relloso A; Feng Y; Rodriguez-Hernandez Z; Haack K; Cole SA; Navas-Acien A; Tellez-Plaza M; Bermudez JD
Am J Epidemiol; 2024 Feb; ():. PubMed ID: 38375692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparative study of variable selection methods in the context of developing psychiatric screening instruments.
Lu F; Petkova E
Stat Med; 2014 Feb; 33(3):401-21. PubMed ID: 23934941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Iterative sure independence screening EM-Bayesian LASSO algorithm for multi-locus genome-wide association studies.
Tamba CL; Ni YL; Zhang YM
PLoS Comput Biol; 2017 Jan; 13(1):e1005357. PubMed ID: 28141824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dementia risk prediction in individuals with mild cognitive impairment: a comparison of Cox regression and machine learning models.
Wang M; Greenberg M; Forkert ND; Chekouo T; Afriyie G; Ismail Z; Smith EE; Sajobi TT
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Nov; 22(1):284. PubMed ID: 36324086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Variable selection for proportional odds model.
Lu W; Zhang HH
Stat Med; 2007 Sep; 26(20):3771-81. PubMed ID: 17266170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Comparison Study of Machine Learning (Random Survival Forest) and Classic Statistic (Cox Proportional Hazards) for Predicting Progression in High-Grade Glioma after Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy.
Qiu X; Gao J; Yang J; Hu J; Hu W; Kong L; Lu JJ
Front Oncol; 2020; 10():551420. PubMed ID: 33194609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparative study of forest methods for time-to-event data: variable selection and predictive performance.
Liu Y; Zhou S; Wei H; An S
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Sep; 21(1):193. PubMed ID: 34563138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of three statistical approaches for feature selection for fine-scale genetic population assignment in four pig breeds.
Hayah I; Ababou M; Botti S; Badaoui B
Trop Anim Health Prod; 2021 Jul; 53(3):395. PubMed ID: 34245361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prognosis of lasso-like penalized Cox models with tumor profiling improves prediction over clinical data alone and benefits from bi-dimensional pre-screening.
Jardillier R; Koca D; Chatelain F; Guyon L
BMC Cancer; 2022 Oct; 22(1):1045. PubMed ID: 36199072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Adjusted adaptive Lasso for covariate model-building in nonlinear mixed-effect pharmacokinetic models.
Haem E; Harling K; Ayatollahi SM; Zare N; Karlsson MO
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn; 2017 Feb; 44(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 28144841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improved nonparametric survival prediction using CoxPH, Random Survival Forest & DeepHit Neural Network.
Asghar N; Khalil U; Ahmad B; Alshanbari HM; Hamraz M; Ahmad B; Khan DM
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2024 May; 24(1):120. PubMed ID: 38715002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. PREDICTION OF TREATMENT OUTCOME FOR AUTISM FROM STRUCTURE OF THE BRAIN BASED ON SURE INDEPENDENCE SCREENING.
Zhuang J; Dvornek NC; Zhao Q; Li X; Ventola P; Duncan JS
Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging; 2019 Apr; 2019():404-408. PubMed ID: 32256966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Regularized Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Metabolic Syndrome Using
Alipour N; Kazemnejad A; Akbarzadeh M; Eskandari F; Zahedi AS; Daneshpour MS
Cell J; 2023 Aug; 25(8):536-545. PubMed ID: 37641415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Feature Selection Stability and Accuracy of Prediction Models for Genomic Prediction of Residual Feed Intake in Pigs Using Machine Learning.
Piles M; Bergsma R; Gianola D; Gilbert H; Tusell L
Front Genet; 2021; 12():611506. PubMed ID: 33692825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of Cox Model Methods in A Low-dimensional Setting with Few Events.
Ojeda FM; Müller C; Börnigen D; Trégouët DA; Schillert A; Heinig M; Zeller T; Schnabel RB
Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics; 2016 Aug; 14(4):235-43. PubMed ID: 27224515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A robust variable screening procedure for ultra-high dimensional data.
Ghosh A; Thoresen M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Aug; 30(8):1816-1832. PubMed ID: 34053339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparing machine learning approaches to incorporate time-varying covariates in predicting cancer survival time.
Cygu S; Seow H; Dushoff J; Bolker BM
Sci Rep; 2023 Jan; 13(1):1370. PubMed ID: 36697455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Three-step hybrid strategy towards efficiently selecting variables in multivariate calibration of near-infrared spectra.
Yu HD; Yun YH; Zhang W; Chen H; Liu D; Zhong Q; Chen W; Chen W
Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc; 2020 Jan; 224():117376. PubMed ID: 31325711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
