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 *

262 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31935267)

  • 1. Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews.
    Wang Z; Nayfeh T; Tetzlaff J; O'Blenis P; Murad MH
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(1):e0227742. PubMed ID: 31935267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial.
    Gartlehner G; Affengruber L; Titscher V; Noel-Storr A; Dooley G; Ballarini N; König F
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 May; 121():20-28. PubMed ID: 31972274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers.
    Rathbone J; Hoffmann T; Glasziou P
    Syst Rev; 2015 Jun; 4():80. PubMed ID: 26073974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews.
    Stoll CRT; Izadi S; Fowler S; Green P; Suls J; Colditz GA
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Dec; 10(4):539-545. PubMed ID: 31272125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A pilot validation study of crowdsourcing systematic reviews: update of a searchable database of pediatric clinical trials of high-dose vitamin D.
    Nama N; Iliriani K; Xia MY; Chen BP; Zhou LL; Pojsupap S; Kappel C; O'Hearn K; Sampson M; Menon K; McNally JD
    Transl Pediatr; 2017 Jan; 6(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 28164026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Aligning text mining and machine learning algorithms with best practices for study selection in systematic literature reviews.
    Popoff E; Besada M; Jansen JP; Cope S; Kanters S
    Syst Rev; 2020 Dec; 9(1):293. PubMed ID: 33308292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing the accuracy of machine-assisted abstract screening with DistillerAI: a user study.
    Gartlehner G; Wagner G; Lux L; Affengruber L; Dobrescu A; Kaminski-Hartenthaler A; Viswanathan M
    Syst Rev; 2019 Nov; 8(1):277. PubMed ID: 31727159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count.
    Nama N; Hennawy M; Barrowman N; O'Hearn K; Sampson M; McNally JD
    Syst Rev; 2021 Apr; 10(1):98. PubMed ID: 33820560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Text mining to support abstract screening for knowledge syntheses: a semi-automated workflow.
    Pham B; Jovanovic J; Bagheri E; Antony J; Ashoor H; Nguyen TT; Rios P; Robson R; Thomas SM; Watt J; Straus SE; Tricco AC
    Syst Rev; 2021 May; 10(1):156. PubMed ID: 34039433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review.
    Waffenschmidt S; Knelangen M; Sieben W; Bühn S; Pieper D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jun; 19(1):132. PubMed ID: 31253092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sensitivity and Specificity of Using GPT-3.5 Turbo Models for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.
    Tran VT; Gartlehner G; Yaacoub S; Boutron I; Schwingshackl L; Stadelmaier J; Sommer I; Alebouyeh F; Afach S; Meerpohl J; Ravaud P
    Ann Intern Med; 2024 Jun; 177(6):791-799. PubMed ID: 38768452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer's disease: a rapid and systematic review.
    Clegg A; Bryant J; Nicholson T; McIntyre L; De Broe S; Gerard K; Waugh N
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(1):1-137. PubMed ID: 11262420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Protocol: a systematic review of studies developing and/or evaluating search strategies to identify prognosis studies.
    Corp N; Jordan JL; Hayden JA; Irvin E; Parker R; Smith A; van der Windt DA
    Syst Rev; 2017 Apr; 6(1):88. PubMed ID: 28427475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation.
    Harrison H; Griffin SJ; Kuhn I; Usher-Smith JA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Jan; 20(1):7. PubMed ID: 31931747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study.
    Nama N; Sampson M; Barrowman N; Sandarage R; Menon K; Macartney G; Murto K; Vaccani JP; Katz S; Zemek R; Nasr A; McNally JD
    J Med Internet Res; 2019 Apr; 21(4):e12953. PubMed ID: 31033444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics.
    Tsafnat G; Glasziou P; Karystianis G; Coiera E
    Syst Rev; 2018 Apr; 7(1):64. PubMed ID: 29695296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Natural language processing was effective in assisting rapid title and abstract screening when updating systematic reviews.
    Qin X; Liu J; Wang Y; Liu Y; Deng K; Ma Y; Zou K; Li L; Sun X
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 May; 133():121-129. PubMed ID: 33485929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.