142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30463497)
1. Individual dynamic predictions using landmarking and joint modelling: Validation of estimators and robustness assessment.
Ferrer L; Putter H; Proust-Lima C
Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Dec; 28(12):3649-3666. PubMed ID: 30463497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Random survival forests for dynamic predictions of a time-to-event outcome using a longitudinal biomarker.
Pickett KL; Suresh K; Campbell KR; Davis S; Juarez-Colunga E
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Oct; 21(1):216. PubMed ID: 34657597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of joint modeling and landmarking for dynamic prediction under an illness-death model.
Suresh K; Taylor JMG; Spratt DE; Daignault S; Tsodikov A
Biom J; 2017 Nov; 59(6):1277-1300. PubMed ID: 28508545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Landmarking 2.0: Bridging the gap between joint models and landmarking.
Putter H; van Houwelingen HC
Stat Med; 2022 May; 41(11):1901-1917. PubMed ID: 35098578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Joint models for dynamic prediction in localised prostate cancer: a literature review.
Parr H; Hall E; Porta N
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Sep; 22(1):245. PubMed ID: 36123621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A copula-based approach for dynamic prediction of survival with a binary time-dependent covariate.
Suresh K; Taylor JMG; Tsodikov A
Stat Med; 2021 Oct; 40(23):4931-4946. PubMed ID: 34124771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Personalized dynamic prediction of death according to tumour progression and high-dimensional genetic factors: Meta-analysis with a joint model.
Emura T; Nakatochi M; Matsui S; Michimae H; Rondeau V
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Sep; 27(9):2842-2858. PubMed ID: 28090814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Individualized dynamic prediction of prostate cancer recurrence with and without the initiation of a second treatment: Development and validation.
Sène M; Taylor JM; Dignam JJ; Jacqmin-Gadda H; Proust-Lima C
Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Dec; 25(6):2972-2991. PubMed ID: 24847900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Quantifying and comparing dynamic predictive accuracy of joint models for longitudinal marker and time-to-event in presence of censoring and competing risks.
Blanche P; Proust-Lima C; Loubère L; Berr C; Dartigues JF; Jacqmin-Gadda H
Biometrics; 2015 Mar; 71(1):102-113. PubMed ID: 25311240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dynamic prediction of repeated events data based on landmarking model: application to colorectal liver metastases data.
Yokota I; Matsuyama Y
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Feb; 19(1):31. PubMed ID: 30764772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dynamic prediction by landmarking in competing risks.
Nicolaie MA; van Houwelingen JC; de Witte TM; Putter H
Stat Med; 2013 May; 32(12):2031-47. PubMed ID: 23086627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A Gaussian copula approach for dynamic prediction of survival with a longitudinal biomarker.
Suresh K; Taylor JMG; Tsodikov A
Biostatistics; 2021 Jul; 22(3):504-521. PubMed ID: 31820798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dynamic prediction of cumulative incidence functions by direct binomial regression.
Grand MK; de Witte TJM; Putter H
Biom J; 2018 Jul; 60(4):734-747. PubMed ID: 29577376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Validation of death prediction after breast cancer relapses using joint models.
Mauguen A; Rachet B; Mathoulin-Pélissier S; Lawrence GM; Siesling S; MacGrogan G; Laurent A; Rondeau V
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Apr; 15():27. PubMed ID: 25888480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Individual dynamic prediction of clinical endpoint from large dimensional longitudinal biomarker history: a landmark approach.
Devaux A; Genuer R; Peres K; Proust-Lima C
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jul; 22(1):188. PubMed ID: 35818025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Landmark cure rate models with time-dependent covariates.
Shi H; Yin G
Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Oct; 26(5):2042-2054. PubMed ID: 28627311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimation of prediction error for survival models.
Lawless JF; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2010 Jan; 29(2):262-74. PubMed ID: 19882678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Choice of prognostic estimators in joint models by estimating differences of expected conditional Kullback-Leibler risks.
Commenges D; Liquet B; Proust-Lima C
Biometrics; 2012 Jun; 68(2):380-7. PubMed ID: 22578147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Identifying the Most Informative Prediction Tool for Cancer-specific Mortality After Radical Prostatectomy: Comparative Analysis of Three Commonly Used Preoperative Prediction Models.
Boehm K; Larcher A; Beyer B; Tian Z; Tilki D; Steuber T; Karakiewicz PI; Heinzer H; Graefen M; Budäus L
Eur Urol; 2016 Jun; 69(6):1038-43. PubMed ID: 26272236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Stein-type shrinkage estimators in gamma regression model with application to prostate cancer data.
Mandal S; Arabi Belaghi R; Mahmoudi A; Aminnejad M
Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(22):4310-4322. PubMed ID: 31317564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
