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 *

196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34652613)

  • 1. Robust Machine Learning for Treatment Effects in Multilevel Observational Studies Under Cluster-level Unmeasured Confounding.
    Suk Y; Kang H
    Psychometrika; 2022 Mar; 87(1):310-343. PubMed ID: 34652613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Tuning Random Forests for Causal Inference under Cluster-Level Unmeasured Confounding.
    Suk Y; Kang H
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(2):408-440. PubMed ID: 35103508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The impact of unmeasured within- and between-cluster confounding on the bias of effect estimatorsof a continuous exposure.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Aug; 29(8):2119-2139. PubMed ID: 31694489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of confounder selection and adjustment methods for estimating causal effects using large healthcare databases.
    Benasseur I; Talbot D; Durand M; Holbrook A; Matteau A; Potter BJ; Renoux C; Schnitzer ME; Tarride JÉ; Guertin JR
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2022 Apr; 31(4):424-433. PubMed ID: 34953160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Probe variables: a tool for identification of unmeasured confounders in an observational study].
    Hong X; Yin JC; Wang B
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2021 Apr; 42(4):735-739. PubMed ID: 34814460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Joint mixed-effects models for causal inference with longitudinal data.
    Shardell M; Ferrucci L
    Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(5):829-846. PubMed ID: 29205454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.
    Fewell Z; Davey Smith G; Sterne JA
    Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 166(6):646-55. PubMed ID: 17615092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounders for credible and reliable real-world evidence.
    Zhang X; Stamey JD; Mathur MB
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Oct; 29(10):1219-1227. PubMed ID: 32929830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Random Forests Approach for Causal Inference with Clustered Observational Data.
    Suk Y; Kang H; Kim JS
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2021; 56(6):829-852. PubMed ID: 32856937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A flexible approach for causal inference with multiple treatments and clustered survival outcomes.
    Hu L; Ji J; Ennis RD; Hogan JW
    Stat Med; 2022 Nov; 41(25):4982-4999. PubMed ID: 35948011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On a preference-based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding-by-indication.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Wolfe RA; Morgenstern H; Zhang J; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(7):1150-68. PubMed ID: 25546152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Unifying instrumental variable and inverse probability weighting approaches for inference of causal treatment effect and unmeasured confounding in observational studies.
    Liu T; Hogan JW
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Mar; 30(3):671-686. PubMed ID: 33213292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bespoke Instruments: A new tool for addressing unmeasured confounders.
    Richardson DB; Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2022 Mar; 191(5):939-947. PubMed ID: 34907434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Flexible propensity score estimation strategies for clustered data in observational studies.
    Chang TH; Nguyen TQ; Lee Y; Jackson JW; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2022 Nov; 41(25):5016-5032. PubMed ID: 36263918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sensitivity analysis of treatment effect to unmeasured confounding in observational studies with survival and competing risks outcomes.
    Huang R; Xu R; Dulai PS
    Stat Med; 2020 Oct; 39(24):3397-3411. PubMed ID: 32677758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Causal inference for observational longitudinal studies using deep survival models.
    Zhu J; Gallego B
    J Biomed Inform; 2022 Jul; 131():104119. PubMed ID: 35714819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounding for binary outcomes using confounding functions.
    Kasza J; Wolfe R; Schuster T
    Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 46(4):1303-1311. PubMed ID: 28338913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.
    John ER; Abrams KR; Brightling CE; Sheehan NA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Nov; 19(1):207. PubMed ID: 31726969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Summarizing causal differences in survival curves in the presence of unmeasured confounding.
    Martínez-Camblor P; MacKenzie TA; Staiger DO; Goodney PP; O'Malley AJ
    Int J Biostat; 2020 Sep; 17(2):223-240. PubMed ID: 32946418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies.
    Barrowman MA; Peek N; Lambie M; Martin GP; Sperrin M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jul; 19(1):166. PubMed ID: 31366331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.