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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34113418)

  • 1. On the Existence of Uniformly Most Powerful Bayesian Tests With Application to Non-Central Chi-Squared Tests.
    Nikooienejad A; Johnson VE
    Bayesian Anal; 2021 Mar; 16(1):93-109. PubMed ID: 34113418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. UNIFORMLY MOST POWERFUL BAYESIAN TESTS.
    Johnson VE
    Ann Stat; 2013; 41(4):1716-1741. PubMed ID: 24659829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Revised standards for statistical evidence.
    Johnson VE
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2013 Nov; 110(48):19313-7. PubMed ID: 24218581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Pearson's goodness-of-fit tests for sparse distributions.
    Chang S; Li D; Qi Y
    J Appl Stat; 2023; 50(5):1078-1093. PubMed ID: 37009596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A Bayesian chi-squared goodness-of-fit test for censored data models.
    Cao J; Moosman A; Johnson VE
    Biometrics; 2010 Jun; 66(2):426-34. PubMed ID: 19645701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A discussion on significance indices for contingency tables under small sample sizes.
    Oliveira NL; Pereira CAB; Diniz MA; Polpo A
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0199102. PubMed ID: 30071022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Permutation and Bayesian tests for testing random effects in linear mixed-effects models.
    Rao K; Drikvandi R; Saville B
    Stat Med; 2019 Nov; 38(25):5034-5047. PubMed ID: 31460683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Goodness-of-Fit Testing for Latent Class Models.
    Collins LM; Fidler PL; Wugalter SE; Long JD
    Multivariate Behav Res; 1993 Jul; 28(3):375-89. PubMed ID: 26776893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Categorical independence tests for large sparse r-way contingency tables.
    Mielke PW; Berry KJ
    Percept Mot Skills; 2002 Oct; 95(2):606-10. PubMed ID: 12434857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Testing for independence in J×K contingency tables with complex sample survey data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM; Sinha D; Hevelone N; Giovannucci E; Hu JC
    Biometrics; 2015 Sep; 71(3):832-40. PubMed ID: 25762089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Choice of test for association in small sample unordered r x c tables.
    Lydersen S; Pradhan V; Senchaudhuri P; Laake P
    Stat Med; 2007 Oct; 26(23):4328-43. PubMed ID: 17311220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Default "Gunel and Dickey" Bayes factors for contingency tables.
    Jamil T; Ly A; Morey RD; Love J; Marsman M; Wagenmakers EJ
    Behav Res Methods; 2017 Apr; 49(2):638-652. PubMed ID: 27325166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The score test for independence in R x C contingency tables with missing data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM
    Biometrics; 1996 Jun; 52(2):751-62. PubMed ID: 8672711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Uniformly most powerful Bayesian interval design for phase I dose-finding trials.
    Lin R; Yin G
    Pharm Stat; 2018 Nov; 17(6):710-724. PubMed ID: 30066466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Simultaneous Bayesian analysis of contingency tables in genetic association studies.
    Dickhaus T
    Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol; 2015 Aug; 14(4):347-60. PubMed ID: 26215535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Testing conditional independence in sets of I × J tables by means of moment and correlation score tests with application to HPV vaccine.
    Iannario M; Lang JB
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(25):4573-4587. PubMed ID: 27346660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations.
    Campbell I
    Stat Med; 2007 Aug; 26(19):3661-75. PubMed ID: 17315184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. USP: an independence test that improves on Pearson's chi-squared and the
    Berrett TB; Samworth RJ
    Proc Math Phys Eng Sci; 2021 Dec; 477(2256):20210549. PubMed ID: 35153605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Two-tailed significance tests for 2 × 2 contingency tables: What is the alternative?
    Prescott RJ
    Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(22):4264-4269. PubMed ID: 31264237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A revisit to contingency table and tests of independence: bootstrap is preferred to Chi-square approximations as well as Fisher's exact test.
    Lin JJ; Chang CH; Pal N
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):438-58. PubMed ID: 24905809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.