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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32711456)

  • 1. The use of restricted mean time lost under competing risks data.
    Lyu J; Hou Y; Chen Z
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Jul; 20(1):197. PubMed ID: 32711456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Implementation of an Alternative Method for Assessing Competing Risks: Restricted Mean Time Lost.
    Wu H; Yuan H; Yang Z; Hou Y; Chen Z
    Am J Epidemiol; 2022 Jan; 191(1):163-172. PubMed ID: 34550319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Communicating and understanding statistical measures when quantifying the between-group difference in competing risks.
    Wu H; Zhang C; Hou Y; Chen Z
    Int J Epidemiol; 2023 Dec; 52(6):1975-1983. PubMed ID: 37738672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimation and modeling of the restricted mean time lost in the presence of competing risks.
    Conner SC; Trinquart L
    Stat Med; 2021 Apr; 40(9):2177-2196. PubMed ID: 33567477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Utility of Restricted Mean Survival Time Analysis for Heart Failure Clinical Trial Evaluation and Interpretation.
    Perego C; Sbolli M; Specchia C; Fiuzat M; McCaw ZR; Metra M; Oriecuia C; Peveri G; Wei LJ; O'Connor CM; Psotka MA
    JACC Heart Fail; 2020 Dec; 8(12):973-983. PubMed ID: 33039446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Average Hazard Ratio - A Good Effect Measure for Time-to-event Endpoints when the Proportional Hazard Assumption is Violated?
    Rauch G; Brannath W; Brückner M; Kieser M
    Methods Inf Med; 2018 May; 57(3):89-100. PubMed ID: 29719915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials.
    Quartagno M; Morris TP; Gilbert DC; Langley RE; Nankivell MG; Parmar MK; White IR
    Clin Trials; 2023 Dec; 20(6):594-602. PubMed ID: 37337728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Estimating restricted mean survival time and expected life-years lost in the presence of competing risks within flexible parametric survival models.
    Mozumder SI; Rutherford MJ; Lambert PC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):52. PubMed ID: 33706711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sample size for a noninferiority clinical trial with time-to-event data in the presence of competing risks.
    Han D; Chen Z; Hou Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(4):797-807. PubMed ID: 29157093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of two treatments in the presence of competing risks.
    Lyu J; Chen J; Hou Y; Chen Z
    Pharm Stat; 2020 Nov; 19(6):746-762. PubMed ID: 32476264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Doubly-robust estimator of the difference in restricted mean times lost with competing risks data.
    Lin J; Trinquart L
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2022 Oct; 31(10):1881-1903. PubMed ID: 35607287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Design of non-inferiority randomized trials using the difference in restricted mean survival times.
    Weir IR; Trinquart L
    Clin Trials; 2018 Oct; 15(5):499-508. PubMed ID: 30074407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A Monte Carlo approach for change-point detection in the Cox proportional hazards model.
    Liu M; Lu W; Shao Y
    Stat Med; 2008 Aug; 27(19):3894-909. PubMed ID: 18254131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sample size determination for jointly testing a cause-specific hazard and the all-cause hazard in the presence of competing risks.
    Yang Q; Fung WK; Li G
    Stat Med; 2018 Apr; 37(8):1389-1401. PubMed ID: 29282764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Variable selection in competing risks models based on quantile regression.
    Li E; Tian M; Tang ML
    Stat Med; 2019 Oct; 38(23):4670-4685. PubMed ID: 31359443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Estimating and testing for center effects in competing risks.
    Katsahian S; Boudreau C
    Stat Med; 2011 Jun; 30(13):1608-17. PubMed ID: 21341296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quantifying time-varying cause-specific hazard and subdistribution hazard ratios with competing risks data.
    Diao G; Ibrahim JG
    Clin Trials; 2019 Aug; 16(4):363-374. PubMed ID: 31165631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Sample size under the additive hazards model.
    McDaniel LS; Yu M; Chappell R
    Clin Trials; 2016 Apr; 13(2):188-98. PubMed ID: 26572562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dealing with competing risks: testing covariates and calculating sample size.
    Pintilie M
    Stat Med; 2002 Nov; 21(22):3317-24. PubMed ID: 12407674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Hierarchical likelihood inference on clustered competing risks data.
    Christian NJ; Ha ID; Jeong JH
    Stat Med; 2016 Jan; 35(2):251-67. PubMed ID: 26278918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.