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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32112415)

  • 1. Multiple observation processes in spatial capture-recapture models: How much do we gain?
    Tourani M; Dupont P; Nawaz MA; Bischof R
    Ecology; 2020 Jul; 101(7):e03030. PubMed ID: 32112415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Precision and bias of spatial capture-recapture estimates: A multi-site, multi-year Utah black bear case study.
    Schmidt GM; Graves TA; Pederson JC; Carroll SL
    Ecol Appl; 2022 Jul; 32(5):e2618. PubMed ID: 35368131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluating and integrating spatial capture-recapture models with data of variable individual identifiability.
    Ruprecht JS; Eriksson CE; Forrester TD; Clark DA; Wisdom MJ; Rowland MM; Johnson BK; Levi T
    Ecol Appl; 2021 Oct; 31(7):e02405. PubMed ID: 34245619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Performance of spatial capture-recapture models with repurposed data: Assessing estimator robustness for retrospective applications.
    Smith JB; Stevens BS; Etter DR; Williams DM
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0236978. PubMed ID: 32797083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Improved inferences about landscape connectivity from spatial capture-recapture by integration of a movement model.
    Dupont G; Linden DW; Sutherland C
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3544. PubMed ID: 34626121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Trap array configuration influences estimates and precision of black bear density and abundance.
    Wilton CM; Puckett EE; Beringer J; Gardner B; Eggert LS; Belant JL
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(10):e111257. PubMed ID: 25350557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Incorporating citizen science data in spatially explicit integrated population models.
    Sun CC; Royle JA; Fuller AK
    Ecology; 2019 Sep; 100(9):e02777. PubMed ID: 31168779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Modeling spatiotemporal abundance and movement dynamics using an integrated spatial capture-recapture movement model.
    Hostetter NJ; Regehr EV; Wilson RR; Royle JA; Converse SJ
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3772. PubMed ID: 35633152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Comparison of Grizzly Bear Demographic Parameters Estimated from Non-Spatial and Spatial Open Population Capture-Recapture Models.
    Whittington J; Sawaya MA
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0134446. PubMed ID: 26230262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Trap configuration and spacing influences parameter estimates in spatial capture-recapture models.
    Sun CC; Fuller AK; Royle JA
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(2):e88025. PubMed ID: 24505361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Explaining detection heterogeneity with finite mixture and non-Euclidean movement in spatially explicit capture-recapture models.
    Marrotte RR; Howe EJ; Beauclerc KB; Potter D; Northrup JM
    PeerJ; 2022; 10():e13490. PubMed ID: 35694380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Multiple data sources improve DNA-based mark-recapture population estimates of grizzly bears.
    Boulanger J; Kendall KC; Stetz JB; Roon DA; Waits LP; Paetkau D
    Ecol Appl; 2008 Apr; 18(3):577-89. PubMed ID: 18488618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How does spatial study design influence density estimates from spatial capture-recapture models?
    Sollmann R; Gardner B; Belant JL
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e34575. PubMed ID: 22539949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Spatial capture-recapture with random thinning for unidentified encounters.
    Jiménez J; C Augustine B; Linden DW; B Chandler R; Royle JA
    Ecol Evol; 2021 Feb; 11(3):1187-1198. PubMed ID: 33598123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Data integration for inference about spatial processes: A model-based approach to test and account for data inconsistency.
    Tenan S; Pedrini P; Bragalanti N; Groff C; Sutherland C
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0185588. PubMed ID: 28973034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Compensatory heterogeneity in spatially explicit capture-recapture data.
    Efford MG; Mowat G
    Ecology; 2014 May; 95(5):1341-8. PubMed ID: 25000765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Integrated animal movement and spatial capture-recapture models: Simulation, implementation, and inference.
    Gardner B; McClintock BT; Converse SJ; Hostetter NJ
    Ecology; 2022 Oct; 103(10):e3771. PubMed ID: 35638187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Simulation-based validation of spatial capture-recapture models: A case study using mountain lions.
    Paterson JT; Proffitt K; Jimenez B; Rotella J; Garrott R
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(4):e0215458. PubMed ID: 31002709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Spatial capture-recapture model performance with known small-mammal densities.
    Gerber BD; Parmenter RR
    Ecol Appl; 2015 Apr; 25(3):695-705. PubMed ID: 26214915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A hierarchical model for estimating the spatial distribution and abundance of animals detected by continuous-time recorders.
    Dorazio RM; Karanth KU
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(5):e0176966. PubMed ID: 28520796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.