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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31578089)

  • 1. Impact Evaluation Using Analysis of Covariance With Error-Prone Covariates That Violate Surrogacy.
    Lockwood JR; McCaffrey DF
    Eval Rev; 2019 Dec; 43(6):335-369. PubMed ID: 31578089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with fallible covariates.
    Culpepper SA; Aguinis H
    Psychol Methods; 2011 Jun; 16(2):166-78. PubMed ID: 21517178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of balancing scores using the ANCOVA approach for estimating average treatment effect: a simulation study.
    Tu C; Koh WY
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):508-515. PubMed ID: 30561245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bias correction by use of errors-in-variables regression models in studies with K-X-ray fluorescence bone lead measurements.
    Lamadrid-Figueroa H; Téllez-Rojo MM; Angeles G; Hernández-Ávila M; Hu H
    Environ Res; 2011 Jan; 111(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 21092947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of subset selection and analysis of covariance for the adjustment of confounders.
    Little RJ; An H; Johanns J; Giordani B
    Psychol Methods; 2000 Dec; 5(4):459-76. PubMed ID: 11194208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. When does measurement error in covariates impact causal effect estimates? Analytic derivations of different scenarios and an empirical illustration.
    Sengewald MA; Steiner PM; Pohl S
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2019 May; 72(2):244-270. PubMed ID: 30345554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using audit information to adjust parameter estimates for data errors in clinical trials.
    Shepherd BE; Shaw PA; Dodd LE
    Clin Trials; 2012 Dec; 9(6):721-9. PubMed ID: 22848072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Correcting for Measurement Error in Time-Varying Covariates in Marginal Structural Models.
    Kyle RP; Moodie EE; Klein MB; Abrahamowicz M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2016 Aug; 184(3):249-58. PubMed ID: 27416840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Propensity Score-Based Estimators With Multiple Error-Prone Covariates.
    Hong H; Aaby DA; Siddique J; Stuart EA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2019 Jan; 188(1):222-230. PubMed ID: 30358801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding.
    Boef AG; Dekkers OM; Vandenbroucke JP; le Cessie S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Nov; 67(11):1258-64. PubMed ID: 25124167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analyzing pre-post designs using the analysis of covariance models with and without the interaction term in a heterogeneous study population.
    Wan F
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Jan; 29(1):189-204. PubMed ID: 30757963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: an introduction and software implementation.
    Hayes AF; Cai L
    Behav Res Methods; 2007 Nov; 39(4):709-22. PubMed ID: 18183883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On a preference-based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding-by-indication.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Wolfe RA; Morgenstern H; Zhang J; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(7):1150-68. PubMed ID: 25546152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies.
    Hogan JW; Lancaster T
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2004 Feb; 13(1):17-48. PubMed ID: 14746439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accelerated failure time models with covariates subject to measurement error.
    He W; Yi GY; Xiong J
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(26):4817-32. PubMed ID: 17436310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An evaluation of bias in propensity score-adjusted non-linear regression models.
    Wan F; Mitra N
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):846-862. PubMed ID: 27095754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Analysis of covariance with pre-treatment measurements in randomized trials under the cases that covariances and post-treatment variances differ between groups.
    Funatogawa T; Funatogawa I; Shyr Y
    Biom J; 2011 May; 53(3):512-24. PubMed ID: 22223254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analyzing pre-post randomized studies with one post-randomization score using repeated measures and ANCOVA models.
    Wan F
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019; 28(10-11):2952-2974. PubMed ID: 30084297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Adjustment for baseline measurement error in randomized controlled trials induces bias.
    Chan SF; Macaskill P; Irwig L; Walter SD
    Control Clin Trials; 2004 Aug; 25(4):408-16. PubMed ID: 15296815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Analysis of covariance with pre-treatment measurements in randomized trials: comparison of equal and unequal slopes.
    Funatogawa I; Funatogawa T
    Biom J; 2011 Sep; 53(5):810-21. PubMed ID: 21887795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.