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 *

241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34957585)

  • 1. Practical recommendations on double score matching for estimating causal effects.
    Zhang Y; Yang S; Ye W; Faries DE; Lipkovich I; Kadziola Z
    Stat Med; 2022 Apr; 41(8):1421-1445. PubMed ID: 34957585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Model misspecification and robustness in causal inference: comparing matching with doubly robust estimation.
    Waernbaum I
    Stat Med; 2012 Jul; 31(15):1572-81. PubMed ID: 22359267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of the ability of double-robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Devereaux PJ; Daurès JP; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 28984050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects.
    Yang S; Zhang Y
    Scand Stat Theory Appl; 2023 Mar; 50(1):235-265. PubMed ID: 36844478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Propensity score matching for estimating a marginal hazard ratio.
    Wang T; Zhao H; Yang S; Tang S; Cui Z; Li L; Faries DE
    Stat Med; 2024 Jun; 43(14):2783-2810. PubMed ID: 38705726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study.
    Leacy FP; Stuart EA
    Stat Med; 2014 Sep; 33(20):3488-508. PubMed ID: 24151187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Doubly robust matching estimators for high dimensional confounding adjustment.
    Antonelli J; Cefalu M; Palmer N; Agniel D
    Biometrics; 2018 Dec; 74(4):1171-1179. PubMed ID: 29750844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ultra-high dimensional variable selection for doubly robust causal inference.
    Tang D; Kong D; Pan W; Wang L
    Biometrics; 2023 Jun; 79(2):903-914. PubMed ID: 35043393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Dec; 26(6):2505-2525. PubMed ID: 26329750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. To use or not to use propensity score matching?
    Wang J
    Pharm Stat; 2021 Jan; 20(1):15-24. PubMed ID: 32776719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Stratified doubly robust estimators for the average causal effect.
    Hattori S; Henmi M
    Biometrics; 2014 Jun; 70(2):270-7. PubMed ID: 24571129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating the performance of propensity score matching based approaches in individual patient data meta-analysis.
    Johara FT; Benedetti A; Platt R; Menzies D; Viiklepp P; Schaaf S; Chan E
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):257. PubMed ID: 34814845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research.
    Fortin SP; Johnston SS; Schuemie MJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 May; 21(1):109. PubMed ID: 34030640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimating effects of nursing intervention via propensity score analysis.
    Qin R; Titler MG; Shever LL; Kim T
    Nurs Res; 2008; 57(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 19018219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Model averaged double robust estimation.
    Cefalu M; Dominici F; Arvold N; Parmigiani G
    Biometrics; 2017 Jun; 73(2):410-421. PubMed ID: 27893927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Causal inference accounting for unobserved confounding after outcome regression and doubly robust estimation.
    Genbäck M; de Luna X
    Biometrics; 2019 Jun; 75(2):506-515. PubMed ID: 30430543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment.
    Alam S; Moodie EEM; Stephens DA
    Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1690-1702. PubMed ID: 30586681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Confounder selection strategies targeting stable treatment effect estimators.
    Loh WW; Vansteelandt S
    Stat Med; 2021 Feb; 40(3):607-630. PubMed ID: 33150645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.