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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30904568)

  • 21. Estimation of diagnostic accuracy of a combination of continuous biomarkers allowing for conditional dependence between the biomarkers and the imperfect reference-test.
    García Barrado L; Coart E; Burzykowski T
    Biometrics; 2017 Jun; 73(2):646-655. PubMed ID: 27598904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A Bayesian approach to simultaneously adjusting for verification and reference standard bias in diagnostic test studies.
    Lu Y; Dendukuri N; Schiller I; Joseph L
    Stat Med; 2010 Oct; 29(24):2532-43. PubMed ID: 20799249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard.
    Reitsma JB; Rutjes AW; Khan KS; Coomarasamy A; Bossuyt PM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):797-806. PubMed ID: 19447581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Chapter 9: options for summarizing medical test performance in the absence of a "gold standard".
    Trikalinos TA; Balion CM
    J Gen Intern Med; 2012 Jun; 27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S67-75. PubMed ID: 22648677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluating diagnostic accuracy in the face of multiple reference standards.
    Naaktgeboren CA; de Groot JA; van Smeden M; Moons KG; Reitsma JB
    Ann Intern Med; 2013 Aug; 159(3):195-202. PubMed ID: 23922065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Reducing decision errors in the paired comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests with Gaussian outcomes.
    Ringham BM; Alonzo TA; Brinton JT; Kreidler SM; Munjal A; Muller KE; Glueck DH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Mar; 14():37. PubMed ID: 24597517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Implications of covariate induced test dependence on the diagnostic accuracy of latent class analysis in pulmonary tuberculosis.
    Keter AK; Lynen L; Van Heerden A; Goetghebeur E; Jacobs BKM
    J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis; 2022 Dec; 29():100331. PubMed ID: 36111071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Development of practical recommendations for diagnostic accuracy studies in low-prevalence situations.
    Holtman GA; Berger MY; Burger H; Deeks JJ; Donner-Banzhoff N; Fanshawe TR; Koshiaris C; Leeflang MM; Oke JL; Perera R; Reitsma JB; Van den Bruel A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Oct; 114():38-48. PubMed ID: 31150837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Different latent class models were used and evaluated for assessing the accuracy of campylobacter diagnostic tests: overcoming imperfect reference standards?
    Asselineau J; Paye A; Bessède E; Perez P; Proust-Lima C
    Epidemiol Infect; 2018 Sep; 146(12):1556-1564. PubMed ID: 29945689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error.
    Challen R; Chatzilena A; Qian G; Oben G; Kwiatkowska R; Hyams C; Finn A; Tsaneva-Atanasova K; Danon L
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2024 Apr; 20(4):e1012062. PubMed ID: 38669293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Expert panel diagnosis demonstrated high reproducibility as reference standard in infectious diseases.
    van Houten CB; Naaktgeboren CA; Ashkenazi-Hoffnung L; Ashkenazi S; Avis W; Chistyakov I; Corigliano T; Galetto A; Gangoiti I; Gervaix A; Glikman D; Ivaskeviciene I; Kuperman AA; Lacroix L; Loeffen Y; Luterbacher F; Meijssen CB; Mintegi S; Nasrallah B; Papan C; van Rossum AMC; Rudolph H; Stein M; Tal R; Tenenbaum T; Usonis V; de Waal W; Weichert S; Wildenbeest JG; de Winter-de Groot KM; Wolfs TFW; Mastboim N; Gottlieb TM; Cohen A; Oved K; Eden E; Feigin PD; Shani L; Bont LJ;
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Aug; 112():20-27. PubMed ID: 30930247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Fuzzy gold standards: Approaches to handling an imperfect reference standard.
    Walsh T
    J Dent; 2018 Jul; 74 Suppl 1():S47-S49. PubMed ID: 29929589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods.
    Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Coomarasamy A; Khan KS; Bossuyt PM
    Health Technol Assess; 2007 Dec; 11(50):iii, ix-51. PubMed ID: 18021577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified.
    Chock C; Irwig L; Berry G; Glasziou P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1211-7. PubMed ID: 9393377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Herd-level test performance based on uncertain estimates of individual test performance, individual true prevalence and herd true prevalence.
    Jordan D; McEwen SA
    Prev Vet Med; 1998 Sep; 36(3):187-209. PubMed ID: 9785375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Accounting for control mislabeling in case-control biomarker studies.
    Rantalainen M; Holmes CC
    J Proteome Res; 2011 Dec; 10(12):5562-7. PubMed ID: 22010953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Dinnes J; Deeks J; Kirby J; Roderick P
    Health Technol Assess; 2005 Mar; 9(12):1-113, iii. PubMed ID: 15774235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The impact of clustering methods for cross-validation, choice of phenotypes, and genotyping strategies on the accuracy of genomic predictions.
    Baller JL; Howard JT; Kachman SD; Spangler ML
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Apr; 97(4):1534-1549. PubMed ID: 30721970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Adjusting for partial verification or workup bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    de Groot JA; Dendukuri N; Janssen KJ; Reitsma JB; Brophy J; Joseph L; Bossuyt PM; Moons KG
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 175(8):847-53. PubMed ID: 22422923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Exposure measurement errors, risk estimate and statistical power in case-control studies using dichotomous analysis of a continuous exposure variable.
    Delpizzo V; Borghesi JL
    Int J Epidemiol; 1995 Aug; 24(4):851-62. PubMed ID: 8550285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.