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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33579807)

  • 1. Statistical Considerations in the Evaluation of Continuous Biomarkers.
    Polley MC; Dignam JJ
    J Nucl Med; 2021 May; 62(5):605-611. PubMed ID: 33579807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Statistical consideration for clinical biomarker research in bladder cancer.
    Shariat SF; Lotan Y; Vickers A; Karakiewicz PI; Schmitz-Dräger BJ; Goebell PJ; Malats N
    Urol Oncol; 2010; 28(4):389-400. PubMed ID: 20610277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Optimal survival time-related cut-point with censored data.
    Liu X; Jin Z
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(3):515-24. PubMed ID: 25382379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Youden Index and optimal cut-point estimated from observations affected by a lower limit of detection.
    Ruopp MD; Perkins NJ; Whitcomb BW; Schisterman EF
    Biom J; 2008 Jun; 50(3):419-30. PubMed ID: 18435502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Translational biomarker discovery in clinical metabolomics: an introductory tutorial.
    Xia J; Broadhurst DI; Wilson M; Wishart DS
    Metabolomics; 2013 Apr; 9(2):280-299. PubMed ID: 23543913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Optimal cut-point definition in biomarkers: the case of censored failure time outcome.
    Rota M; Antolini L; Valsecchi MG
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Mar; 15():24. PubMed ID: 25887743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating biomarkers for prognostic enrichment of clinical trials.
    Kerr KF; Roth J; Zhu K; Thiessen-Philbrook H; Meisner A; Wilson FP; Coca S; Parikh CR
    Clin Trials; 2017 Dec; 14(6):629-638. PubMed ID: 28795578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Estimation of treatment effect in two-stage confirmatory oncology trials of personalized medicines.
    Li W; Chen C; Li X; Beckman RA
    Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(12):1843-1861. PubMed ID: 28303586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Defining an Optimal Cut-Point Value in ROC Analysis: An Alternative Approach.
    Unal I
    Comput Math Methods Med; 2017; 2017():3762651. PubMed ID: 28642804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Nonparametric multiple imputation for receiver operating characteristics analysis when some biomarker values are missing at random.
    Long Q; Zhang X; Hsu CH
    Stat Med; 2011 Nov; 30(26):3149-61. PubMed ID: 22025311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Statistical assessment of the prognostic and the predictive value of biomarkers-A biomarker assessment framework with applications to traumatic brain injury biomarker studies.
    Bantis LE; Young KJ; Tsimikas JV; Mosier BR; Gajewski B; Yeatts S; Martin RL; Barsan W; Silbergleit R; Rockswold G; Korley FK
    Res Methods Med Health Sci; 2023 Jan; 4(1):34-48. PubMed ID: 37009524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Adjustment for measurement error in evaluating diagnostic biomarkers by using an internal reliability sample.
    White MT; Xie SX
    Stat Med; 2013 Nov; 32(27):4709-25. PubMed ID: 23765915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recommendation to use exact P-values in biomarker discovery research in place of approximate P-values.
    Buas MF; Li CI; Anderson GL; Pepe MS
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2018 Oct; 56():83-89. PubMed ID: 30099328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Development of omics-based clinical tests for prognosis and therapy selection: the challenge of achieving statistical robustness and clinical utility.
    McShane LM; Polley MY
    Clin Trials; 2013 Oct; 10(5):653-65. PubMed ID: 24000377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Why have so few proteomic biomarkers "survived" validation? (Sample size and independent validation considerations).
    Hernández B; Parnell A; Pennington SR
    Proteomics; 2014 Jul; 14(13-14):1587-92. PubMed ID: 24737731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Determining cut-points for Alzheimer's disease biomarkers: statistical issues, methods and challenges.
    Bartlett JW; Frost C; Mattsson N; Skillbäck T; Blennow K; Zetterberg H; Schott JM
    Biomark Med; 2012 Aug; 6(4):391-400. PubMed ID: 22917141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Methodological issues in current practice may lead to bias in the development of biomarker combinations for predicting acute kidney injury.
    Meisner A; Kerr KF; Thiessen-Philbrook H; Coca SG; Parikh CR
    Kidney Int; 2016 Feb; 89(2):429-38. PubMed ID: 26398494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Prognostic immunophenotypic biomarker studies in diffuse large B cell lymphoma with special emphasis on rational determination of cut-off scores.
    Tzankov A; Zlobec I; Went P; Robl H; Hoeller S; Dirnhofer S
    Leuk Lymphoma; 2010 Feb; 51(2):199-212. PubMed ID: 19925052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Statistical issues in the validation of prognostic, predictive, and surrogate biomarkers.
    Sargent DJ; Mandrekar SJ
    Clin Trials; 2013 Oct; 10(5):647-52. PubMed ID: 23983158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Youden Index and the optimal cut-point corrected for measurement error.
    Perkins NJ; Schisterman EF
    Biom J; 2005 Aug; 47(4):428-41. PubMed ID: 16161802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.