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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30764772)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Additive-multiplicative hazards regression models for interval-censored semi-competing risks data with missing intermediate events.
    Kim J; Kim J; Kim SW
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Mar; 19(1):49. PubMed ID: 30841923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Non-parametric estimation of transition probabilities in non-Markov multi-state models: The landmark Aalen-Johansen estimator.
    Putter H; Spitoni C
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Jul; 27(7):2081-2092. PubMed ID: 29846146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A hybrid landmark Aalen-Johansen estimator for transition probabilities in partially non-Markov multi-state models.
    Maltzahn N; Hoff R; Aalen OO; Mehlum IS; Putter H; Gran JM
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2021 Oct; 27(4):737-760. PubMed ID: 34595580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Nonparametric estimation of transition probabilities in the non-Markov illness-death model: A comparative study.
    de Uña-Álvarez J; Meira-Machado L
    Biometrics; 2015 Jun; 71(2):364-75. PubMed ID: 25735883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Landmark estimation of transition probabilities in non-Markov multi-state models with covariates.
    Hoff R; Putter H; Mehlum IS; Gran JM
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2019 Oct; 25(4):660-680. PubMed ID: 30997582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Correcting for dependent censoring in routine outcome monitoring data by applying the inverse probability censoring weighted estimator.
    Willems S; Schat A; van Noorden MS; Fiocco M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Feb; 27(2):323-335. PubMed ID: 26988930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Estimating a population cumulative incidence under calendar time trends.
    Hansen SN; Overgaard M; Andersen PK; Parner ET
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):7. PubMed ID: 28077076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY)-estimation of adverse event risks.
    Stegherr R; Schmoor C; Beyersmann J; Rufibach K; Jehl V; Brückner A; Eisele L; Künzel T; Kupas K; Langer F; Leverkus F; Loos A; Norenberg C; Voss F; Friede T
    Trials; 2021 Jun; 22(1):420. PubMed ID: 34187527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Comparison of methods for estimating the attributable risk in the context of survival analysis.
    Gassama M; Bénichou J; Dartois L; Thiébaut AC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):10. PubMed ID: 28114895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Events per variable for risk differences and relative risks using pseudo-observations.
    Hansen SN; Andersen PK; Parner ET
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2014 Oct; 20(4):584-98. PubMed ID: 24420649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Major hepatic resection reduces the probability of intrahepatic recurrences following resection of colorectal carcinoma liver metastases.
    Nagakura S; Shirai Y; Yokoyama N; Wakai T; Suda T; Hatakeyama K
    Hepatogastroenterology; 2003; 50(51):779-83. PubMed ID: 12828084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Liver metastases from gastric cancer represent systemic disease in comparison with those from colorectal cancer.
    Oguro S; Imamura H; Yoshimoto J; Ishizaki Y; Kawasaki S
    J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci; 2016 Jun; 23(6):324-32. PubMed ID: 26946472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dynamic prediction of survival using multivariate functional principal component analysis: A strict landmarking approach.
    Gomon D; Putter H; Fiocco M; Signorelli M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2024 Feb; 33(2):256-272. PubMed ID: 38196243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Bivariate pseudo-observations for recurrent event analysis with terminal events.
    Furberg JK; Andersen PK; Korn S; Overgaard M; Ravn H
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2023 Apr; 29(2):256-287. PubMed ID: 34739680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Use of predicted vital status to improve survival analysis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cohorts.
    Brooks MB; Keshavjee S; Gelmanova I; Zemlyanaya NA; Mitnick CD; Manjourides J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Dec; 18(1):166. PubMed ID: 30537944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.