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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32529683)

  • 1. Measuring intrarater association between correlated ordinal ratings.
    Nelson KP; Zhou TJ; Edwards D
    Biom J; 2020 Nov; 62(7):1687-1701. PubMed ID: 32529683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessing the influence of rater and subject characteristics on measures of agreement for ordinal ratings.
    Nelson KP; Mitani AA; Edwards D
    Stat Med; 2017 Sep; 36(20):3181-3199. PubMed ID: 28612356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluating the effects of rater and subject factors on measures of association.
    Nelson KP; Mitani AA; Edwards D
    Biom J; 2018 May; 60(3):639-656. PubMed ID: 29349801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Summary measures of agreement and association between many raters' ordinal classifications.
    Mitani AA; Freer PE; Nelson KP
    Ann Epidemiol; 2017 Oct; 27(10):677-685.e4. PubMed ID: 29029991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Measures of agreement between many raters for ordinal classifications.
    Nelson KP; Edwards D
    Stat Med; 2015 Oct; 34(23):3116-32. PubMed ID: 26095449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A measure of association for ordered categorical data in population-based studies.
    Nelson KP; Edwards D
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):812-831. PubMed ID: 27184590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measuring rater bias in diagnostic tests with ordinal ratings.
    Kim C; Lin X; Nelson KP
    Stat Med; 2021 Jul; 40(17):4014-4033. PubMed ID: 33969509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A paired kappa to compare binary ratings across two medical tests.
    Nelson KP; Edwards D
    Stat Med; 2019 Jul; 38(17):3272-3287. PubMed ID: 31099902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Methods of assessing categorical agreement between correlated screening tests in clinical studies.
    Zhou TJ; Raza S; Nelson KP
    J Appl Stat; 2021; 48(10):1861-1881. PubMed ID: 34305250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quantifying rater variation for ordinal data using a rating scale model.
    Zhang S; Petersen JH
    Stat Med; 2018 Jun; 37(14):2223-2237. PubMed ID: 29663479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Improving the reliability of diagnostic tests in population-based agreement studies.
    Nelson KP; Edwards D
    Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(6):617-26. PubMed ID: 20128018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Validity and reliability of exposure assessors' ratings of exposure intensity by type of occupational questionnaire and type of rater.
    Friesen MC; Coble JB; Katki HA; Ji BT; Xue S; Lu W; Stewart PA
    Ann Occup Hyg; 2011 Jul; 55(6):601-11. PubMed ID: 21511891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Simultaneous estimation of intrarater and interrater agreement for multiple raters under order restrictions for a binary trait.
    Lester Kirchner H; Lemke JH
    Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(12):1761-72. PubMed ID: 12111910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistical description of interrater variability in ordinal ratings.
    Nelson JC; Pepe MS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2000 Oct; 9(5):475-96. PubMed ID: 11191261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Inter-rater variability as mutual disagreement: identifying raters' divergent points of view.
    Gingerich A; Ramlo SE; van der Vleuten CPM; Eva KW; Regehr G
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2017 Oct; 22(4):819-838. PubMed ID: 27651046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
    Kim SH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim YM; Chang YW; Lee JH; Kim HW; Choi EJ;
    Korean J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 20(2):218-224. PubMed ID: 30672161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A crossed random effects modeling approach for estimating diagnostic accuracy from ordinal ratings without a gold standard.
    Xie Y; Chen Z; Albert PS
    Stat Med; 2013 Sep; 32(20):3472-85. PubMed ID: 23529923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reproducible immunohistochemical criteria based on multiple raters' judgments for expression of thymidine phosphorylase in breast cancer tissue.
    Tsuda H; Akiyama F; Kurosumi M; Sakamoto G
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2004 Aug; 86(3):215-23. PubMed ID: 15567938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
    Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Women's features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN).
    Pérez-Gómez B; Ruiz F; Martínez I; Casals M; Miranda J; Sánchez-Contador C; Vidal C; Llobet R; Pollán M; Salas D
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 Feb; 132(1):287-95. PubMed ID: 22042363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.