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)

  • 21. Avoiding pitfalls when combining multiple imputation and propensity scores.
    Granger E; Sergeant JC; Lunt M
    Stat Med; 2019 Nov; 38(26):5120-5132. PubMed ID: 31512265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment.
    Alam S; Moodie EEM; Stephens DA
    Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1690-1702. PubMed ID: 30586681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Propensity score analysis methods with balancing constraints: A Monte Carlo study.
    Li Y; Li L
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Apr; 30(4):1119-1142. PubMed ID: 33525962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Franklin JM; Glynn RJ; Solomon DH; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2013 May; 24(3):401-9. PubMed ID: 23532053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Five Steps to Successfully Implement and Evaluate Propensity Score Matching in Clinical Research Studies.
    Staffa SJ; Zurakowski D
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Oct; 127(4):1066-1073. PubMed ID: 29324498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Estimation of propensity scores using generalized additive models.
    Woo MJ; Reiter JP; Karr AF
    Stat Med; 2008 Aug; 27(19):3805-16. PubMed ID: 18366144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Subgroup balancing propensity score.
    Dong J; Zhang JL; Zeng S; Li F
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Mar; 29(3):659-676. PubMed ID: 31456486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study.
    Leacy FP; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2014 Sep; 33(20):3488-508. PubMed ID: 24151187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Unbiased estimation of factorial effect by using analysis of covariance or propensity score method for observational studies in laboratory medicine].
    Inada M
    Rinsho Byori; 2012 Jul; 60(7):689-97. PubMed ID: 22973732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(16):2837-49. PubMed ID: 23239115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Use of propensity score and disease risk score for multiple treatments with time-to-event outcome: a simulation study.
    Zhang D; Kim J
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(6):1103-1115. PubMed ID: 30831052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks.
    Austin PC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):537-45. PubMed ID: 18471657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. How Do Propensity Score Methods Measure Up in the Presence of Measurement Error? A Monte Carlo Study.
    Rodríguez De Gil P; Bellara AP; Lanehart RE; Lee RS; Kim ES; Kromrey JD
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2015; 50(5):520-32. PubMed ID: 26610250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Controlling for confounding via propensity score methods can result in biased estimation of the conditional AUC: A simulation study.
    Galadima HI; McClish DK
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Oct; 18(5):568-582. PubMed ID: 31111682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Balancing versus modelling in weighted analysis of non-randomised studies with survival outcomes: A simulation study.
    Filla T; Schwender H; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2024 Jul; 43(17):3140-3163. PubMed ID: 38801062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The problem of controlling for imperfectly measured confounders on dissimilar populations: a database simulation study.
    Schonberger RB; Gilbertsen T; Dai F
    J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth; 2014 Apr; 28(2):247-54. PubMed ID: 23962461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Using classification tree analysis to generate propensity score weights.
    Linden A; Yarnold PR
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Aug; 23(4):703-712. PubMed ID: 28371206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Estimating causal effects for survival (time-to-event) outcomes by combining classification tree analysis and propensity score weighting.
    Linden A; Yarnold PR
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2018 Apr; 24(2):380-387. PubMed ID: 29230910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A comparison of machine learning algorithms and covariate balance measures for propensity score matching and weighting.
    Cannas M; Arpino B
    Biom J; 2019 Jul; 61(4):1049-1072. PubMed ID: 31090108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.