167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30732587)
1. Spurious interaction as a result of categorization.
Thoresen M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Feb; 19(1):28. PubMed ID: 30732587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of categorization method, regression type, and variable distribution on the inflation of Type-I error rate when categorizing a confounding variable.
Barnwell-Ménard JL; Li Q; Cohen AA
Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(6):936-49. PubMed ID: 25504513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cut points and contexts.
Busch EL
Cancer; 2021 Dec; 127(23):4348-4355. PubMed ID: 34424538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Using generalized additive models to reduce residual confounding.
Benedetti A; Abrahamowicz M
Stat Med; 2004 Dec; 23(24):3781-801. PubMed ID: 15580601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Regression calibration for dichotomized mismeasured predictors.
Natarajan L
Int J Biostat; 2009; 5(1):Article 12. PubMed ID: 20046953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Meta-analytical synthesis of regression coefficients under different categorization scheme of continuous covariates.
Yoneoka D; Henmi M
Stat Med; 2017 Nov; 36(27):4336-4352. PubMed ID: 28815681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models.
Babyak MA
Psychosom Med; 2004; 66(3):411-21. PubMed ID: 15184705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A Simulation Study Comparing Different Statistical Approaches for the Identification of Predictive Biomarkers.
Haller B; Ulm K; Hapfelmeier A
Comput Math Methods Med; 2019; 2019():7037230. PubMed ID: 31312252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
Brookes ST; Whitley E; Peters TJ; Mulheran PA; Egger M; Davey Smith G
Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(33):1-56. PubMed ID: 11701102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bayesian analysis of crossclassified spatial data with autocorrelation.
Sun L; Clayton MK
Biometrics; 2008 Mar; 64(1):74-84. PubMed ID: 17680834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing the effects of continuous and discrete covariate mismeasurement, with emphasis on the dichotomization of mismeasured predictors.
Gustafson P; Le Nhu D
Biometrics; 2002 Dec; 58(4):878-87. PubMed ID: 12495142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Causal versus spurious spatial exposure-response associations in health risk analysis.
Cox LA; Popken DA; Berman DW
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2013; 43 Suppl 1():26-38. PubMed ID: 23557011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Correcting for measurement error in binary and continuous variables using replicates.
White I; Frost C; Tokunaga S
Stat Med; 2001 Nov; 20(22):3441-57. PubMed ID: 11746328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea.
Royston P; Altman DG; Sauerbrei W
Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(1):127-41. PubMed ID: 16217841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Regression calibration when foods (measured with error) are the variables of interest: markedly non-Gaussian data with many zeroes.
Fraser GE; Stram DO
Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Feb; 175(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 22268227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of procedures to assess non-linear and time-varying effects in multivariable models for survival data.
Buchholz A; Sauerbrei W
Biom J; 2011 Mar; 53(2):308-31. PubMed ID: 21328605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The detection of gene-environment interaction for continuous traits: should we deal with measurement error by bigger studies or better measurement?
Wong MY; Day NE; Luan JA; Chan KP; Wareham NJ
Int J Epidemiol; 2003 Feb; 32(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 12690008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Problems of correlations between explanatory variables in multiple regression analyses in the dental literature.
Tu YK; Kellett M; Clerehugh V; Gilthorpe MS
Br Dent J; 2005 Oct; 199(7):457-61. PubMed ID: 16215581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Variance matters: the shape of a datum.
Davison M; Elliffe D
Behav Processes; 2009 Jun; 81(2):216-22. PubMed ID: 19429214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of exposure imprecision on estimation of the benchmark dose.
Budtz-Jørgensen E; Keiding N; Grandjean P
Risk Anal; 2004 Dec; 24(6):1689-96. PubMed ID: 15660622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
