463 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34563138)
1. A comparative study of forest methods for time-to-event data: variable selection and predictive performance.
Liu Y; Zhou S; Wei H; An S
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Sep; 21(1):193. PubMed ID: 34563138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of the conditional inference survival forest model to random survival forests based on a simulation study as well as on two applications with time-to-event data.
Nasejje JB; Mwambi H; Dheda K; Lesosky M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):115. PubMed ID: 28754093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Individual risk prediction: Comparing random forests with Cox proportional-hazards model by a simulation study.
Baralou V; Kalpourtzi N; Touloumi G
Biom J; 2023 Aug; 65(6):e2100380. PubMed ID: 36169048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Unbiased split variable selection for random survival forests using maximally selected rank statistics.
Wright MN; Dankowski T; Ziegler A
Stat Med; 2017 Apr; 36(8):1272-1284. PubMed ID: 28088842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Random survival forests for dynamic predictions of a time-to-event outcome using a longitudinal biomarker.
Pickett KL; Suresh K; Campbell KR; Davis S; Juarez-Colunga E
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Oct; 21(1):216. PubMed ID: 34657597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prognosis prediction of extremity and trunk wall soft-tissue sarcomas treated with surgical resection with radiomic analysis based on random survival forest.
Yang Y; Ma X; Wang Y; Ding X
Updates Surg; 2022 Feb; 74(1):355-365. PubMed ID: 34003477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Risk factors associated with major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events following percutaneous coronary intervention: a 10-year follow-up comparing random survival forest and Cox proportional-hazards model.
Farhadian M; Dehdar Karsidani S; Mozayanimonfared A; Mahjub H
BMC Cardiovasc Disord; 2021 Jan; 21(1):38. PubMed ID: 33461487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Novel head and neck cancer survival analysis approach: random survival forests versus Cox proportional hazards regression.
Datema FR; Moya A; Krause P; Bäck T; Willmes L; Langeveld T; Baatenburg de Jong RJ; Blom HM
Head Neck; 2012 Jan; 34(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 21322080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Improved nonparametric survival prediction using CoxPH, Random Survival Forest & DeepHit Neural Network.
Asghar N; Khalil U; Ahmad B; Alshanbari HM; Hamraz M; Ahmad B; Khan DM
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2024 May; 24(1):120. PubMed ID: 38715002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A multicenter random forest model for effective prognosis prediction in collaborative clinical research network.
Li J; Tian Y; Zhu Y; Zhou T; Li J; Ding K; Li J
Artif Intell Med; 2020 Mar; 103():101814. PubMed ID: 32143809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Recursive Random Forests Enable Better Predictive Performance and Model Interpretation than Variable Selection by LASSO.
Zhu XW; Xin YJ; Ge HL
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Apr; 55(4):736-46. PubMed ID: 25746224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Predicting Colorectal Cancer Survival Using Time-to-Event Machine Learning: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Yang X; Qiu H; Wang L; Wang X
J Med Internet Res; 2023 Oct; 25():e44417. PubMed ID: 37883174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of methods for early-readmission prediction in a high-dimensional heterogeneous covariates and time-to-event outcome framework.
Bussy S; Veil R; Looten V; Burgun A; Gaïffas S; Guilloux A; Ranque B; Jannot AS
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Mar; 19(1):50. PubMed ID: 30841867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Survival prediction models since liver transplantation - comparisons between Cox models and machine learning techniques.
Kantidakis G; Putter H; Lancia C; Boer J; Braat AE; Fiocco M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Nov; 20(1):277. PubMed ID: 33198650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Random Survival Forest in practice: a method for modelling complex metabolomics data in time to event analysis.
Dietrich S; Floegel A; Troll M; Kühn T; Rathmann W; Peters A; Sookthai D; von Bergen M; Kaaks R; Adamski J; Prehn C; Boeing H; Schulze MB; Illig T; Pischon T; Knüppel S; Wang-Sattler R; Drogan D
Int J Epidemiol; 2016 Oct; 45(5):1406-1420. PubMed ID: 27591264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Application and Comparison of Machine Learning Models for the Prediction of Breast Cancer Prognosis: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Xiao J; Mo M; Wang Z; Zhou C; Shen J; Yuan J; He Y; Zheng Y
JMIR Med Inform; 2022 Feb; 10(2):e33440. PubMed ID: 35179504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A random forest method with feature selection for developing medical prediction models with clustered and longitudinal data.
Speiser JL
J Biomed Inform; 2021 May; 117():103763. PubMed ID: 33781921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A Comparison Study of Machine Learning (Random Survival Forest) and Classic Statistic (Cox Proportional Hazards) for Predicting Progression in High-Grade Glioma after Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy.
Qiu X; Gao J; Yang J; Hu J; Hu W; Kong L; Lu JJ
Front Oncol; 2020; 10():551420. PubMed ID: 33194609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Predicting prolonged length of intensive care unit stay
Wu JY; Lin Y; Lin K; Hu YH; Kong GL
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2021 Dec; 53(6):1163-1170. PubMed ID: 34916699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Model for Patients After Lung Transplantation.
Tian D; Yan HJ; Huang H; Zuo YJ; Liu MZ; Zhao J; Wu B; Shi LZ; Chen JY
JAMA Netw Open; 2023 May; 6(5):e2312022. PubMed ID: 37145595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
