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 *

216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30561245)

  • 1. Comparison of balancing scores using the ANCOVA approach for estimating average treatment effect: a simulation study.
    Tu C; Koh WY
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):508-515. PubMed ID: 30561245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Comparison of Latent Variable Propensity Score Models to Traditional Propensity Score Models under Conditions of Covariate Unreliability.
    Whittaker TA
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(4):625-646. PubMed ID: 31530179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Minimizing confounding in comparative observational studies with time-to-event outcomes: An extensive comparison of covariate balancing methods using Monte Carlo simulation.
    Cafri G; Fortin S; Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2024 Aug; 33(8):1437-1460. PubMed ID: 39053570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. When does measurement error in covariates impact causal effect estimates? Analytic derivations of different scenarios and an empirical illustration.
    Sengewald MA; Steiner PM; Pohl S
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2019 May; 72(2):244-270. PubMed ID: 30345554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An evaluation of bias in propensity score-adjusted non-linear regression models.
    Wan F; Mitra N
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):846-862. PubMed ID: 27095754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Propensity score analysis with partially observed covariates: How should multiple imputation be used?
    Leyrat C; Seaman SR; White IR; Douglas I; Smeeth L; Kim J; Resche-Rigon M; Carpenter JR; Williamson EJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jan; 28(1):3-19. PubMed ID: 28573919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model.
    Caruana E; Chevret S; Resche-Rigon M; Pirracchio R
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1415-22.e2. PubMed ID: 26050059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Propensity scores based methods for estimating average treatment effect and average treatment effect among treated: A comparative study.
    Abdia Y; Kulasekera KB; Datta S; Boakye M; Kong M
    Biom J; 2017 Sep; 59(5):967-985. PubMed ID: 28436047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2505-2525. PubMed ID: 26329750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study.
    Weymann D; Chan B; Regier DA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):181. PubMed ID: 37559105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate.
    Hade EM; Lu B
    Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):74-87. PubMed ID: 23787715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation.
    Mitra R; Reiter JP
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Feb; 25(1):188-204. PubMed ID: 22687877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(20):2137-48. PubMed ID: 20108233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(11):1874-1894. PubMed ID: 29508424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Prognostic score-based model averaging approach for propensity score estimation.
    Kabata D; Stuart EA; Shintani A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Oct; 24(1):228. PubMed ID: 39363252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Propensity score matching and subclassification in observational studies with multi-level treatments.
    Yang S; Imbens GW; Cui Z; Faries DE; Kadziola Z
    Biometrics; 2016 Dec; 72(4):1055-1065. PubMed ID: 26991040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance evaluation of regression splines for propensity score adjustment in post-market safety analysis with multiple treatments.
    Tian Y; Baro E; Zhang R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(5):810-821. PubMed ID: 31502924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact Evaluation Using Analysis of Covariance With Error-Prone Covariates That Violate Surrogacy.
    Lockwood JR; McCaffrey DF
    Eval Rev; 2019 Dec; 43(6):335-369. PubMed ID: 31578089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.