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 *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30904568)

  • 41. [Evaluation of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard using an Anaplasma marginale field data set].
    Müllner P; Dreher UM; Meli ML; Lutz H; Hofman-Lehmann R; Doherr MG
    Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2005; 118(9-10):416-22. PubMed ID: 16206931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown.
    Enøe C; Georgiadis MP; Johnson WO
    Prev Vet Med; 2000 May; 45(1-2):61-81. PubMed ID: 10802334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Association between compliance with methodological standards of diagnostic research and reported test accuracy: meta-analysis of focused assessment of US for trauma.
    Stengel D; Bauwens K; Rademacher G; Mutze S; Ekkernkamp A
    Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):102-11. PubMed ID: 15983072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The existence of standard-biased mortality ratios due to death certificate misclassification - a simulation study based on a true story.
    Deckert A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Jan; 16():8. PubMed ID: 26801235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Di Nisio M; Smidt N; van Rijn JC; Bossuyt PM
    CMAJ; 2006 Feb; 174(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 16477057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Studies of diagnostic test accuracy: Partial verification bias and test result-based sampling.
    Kohn MA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 May; 145():179-182. PubMed ID: 35124189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Approaches to uncertainty in exposure assessment in environmental epidemiology.
    Spiegelman D
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2010; 31():149-63. PubMed ID: 20070202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Examining the effect of evaluation sample size on the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 diagnostic tests in practice: a simulation study.
    Sammut-Powell C; Reynard C; Allen J; McDermott J; Braybrook J; Parisi R; Lasserson D; Body R;
    Diagn Progn Res; 2022 Apr; 6(1):12. PubMed ID: 35468850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Study Designs: Diagnostic Studies.
    Dhochak N; Lodha R
    Indian Pediatr; 2022 Feb; 59(2):159-165. PubMed ID: 33876780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Sample Size Requirements for Applying Diagnostic Classification Models.
    Sen S; Cohen AS
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():621251. PubMed ID: 33569029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Challenges in the real world use of classification accuracy metrics: From recall and precision to the Matthews correlation coefficient.
    Foody GM
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(10):e0291908. PubMed ID: 37792898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Measurement Uncertainty in Clinical Validation Studies of Sensors.
    Ansermino JM; Dumont GA; Ginsburg AS
    Sensors (Basel); 2023 Mar; 23(6):. PubMed ID: 36991610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A Software Tool for Exploring the Relation between Diagnostic Accuracy and Measurement Uncertainty.
    Chatzimichail T; Hatjimihail AT
    Diagnostics (Basel); 2020 Aug; 10(9):. PubMed ID: 32825135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A Software Tool for Calculating the Uncertainty of Diagnostic Accuracy Measures.
    Chatzimichail T; Hatjimihail AT
    Diagnostics (Basel); 2021 Feb; 11(3):. PubMed ID: 33673466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. An evaluation of common methods for dichotomization of continuous variables to discriminate disease status.
    Prince Nelson SL; Ramakrishnan V; Nietert PJ; Kamen DL; Ramos PS; Wolf BJ
    Commun Stat Theory Methods; 2017; 46(21):10823-10834. PubMed ID: 29962658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Asymptotic analysis of reliability measures for an imperfect dichotomous test.
    Slynko A
    Stat Pap (Berl); 2022; 63(4):995-1012. PubMed ID: 34629758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. On the Accuracy of Replication Failure Rates.
    Schauer JM
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(3):598-615. PubMed ID: 37339430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Multinomial tree models for assessing the status of the reference in studies of the accuracy of tools for binary classification.
    Botella J; Huang H; Suero M
    Front Psychol; 2013; 4():694. PubMed ID: 24106484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. A Group Comparison Test under Uncertain Group Membership.
    Bauer TA; Folster A; Braun T; Oertzen TV
    Psychometrika; 2021 Dec; 86(4):920-937. PubMed ID: 34435309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.