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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34994667)

  • 21. Performance of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy with few studies or sparse data.
    Takwoingi Y; Guo B; Riley RD; Deeks JJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1896-1911. PubMed ID: 26116616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A randomized trial of ways to describe test accuracy: the effect on physicians' post-test probability estimates.
    Puhan MA; Steurer J; Bachmann LM; ter Riet G
    Ann Intern Med; 2005 Aug; 143(3):184-9. PubMed ID: 16061916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests accounting for disease prevalence: a new model using trivariate copulas.
    Hoyer A; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(11):1912-24. PubMed ID: 25712874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The Evaluation of Bivariate Mixed Models in Meta-analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies with SAS, Stata and R.
    Vogelgesang F; Schlattmann P; Dewey M
    Methods Inf Med; 2018 May; 57(3):111-119. PubMed ID: 29719917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis models for diagnostic test accuracy studies using arcsine-based transformations.
    Negeri ZF; Shaikh M; Beyene J
    Biom J; 2018 Jul; 60(4):827-844. PubMed ID: 29748967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A hybrid Bayesian hierarchical model combining cohort and case-control studies for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: Accounting for partial verification bias.
    Ma X; Chen Y; Cole SR; Chu H
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Dec; 25(6):3015-3037. PubMed ID: 24862512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Constrained empirical-likelihood confidence regions in nonignorable covariate-missing data problems.
    Xie Y; Zhang B
    Stat Med; 2019 Feb; 38(3):452-479. PubMed ID: 30311246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A pseudo-likelihood approach for multivariate meta-analysis of test accuracy studies with multiple thresholds.
    Guolo A; To DK
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Jan; 30(1):204-220. PubMed ID: 32787534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies using imputation for partial reporting of multiple thresholds.
    Ensor J; Deeks JJ; Martin EC; Riley RD
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Mar; 9(1):100-115. PubMed ID: 29052347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies: a new statistical model using beta-binomial distributions and bivariate copulas.
    Kuss O; Hoyer A; Solms A
    Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):17-30. PubMed ID: 23873593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias.
    Henmi M; Copas JB
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):2969-83. PubMed ID: 20963748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Meta-analysis of studies with bivariate binary outcomes: a marginal beta-binomial model approach.
    Chen Y; Hong C; Ning Y; Su X
    Stat Med; 2016 Jan; 35(1):21-40. PubMed ID: 26303591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: Between-study boundary estimate problem.
    Yoneoka D; Henmi M
    Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(21):4131-4145. PubMed ID: 31286537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data.
    Stijnen T; Hamza TH; Ozdemir P
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(29):3046-67. PubMed ID: 20827667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Estimation of an overall standardized mean difference in random-effects meta-analysis if the distribution of random effects departs from normal.
    Rubio-Aparicio M; López-López JA; Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F; Viechtbauer W; Van den Noortgate W
    Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):489-503. PubMed ID: 29989344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
    Eusebi P; Reitsma JB; Vermunt JK
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Jul; 14():88. PubMed ID: 25015209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A bivariate contaminated binormal model for robust fitting of proper ROC curves to a pair of correlated, possibly degenerate, ROC datasets.
    Zhai X; Chakraborty DP
    Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2207-2222. PubMed ID: 28382718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A Bayesian approach to toxicological testing.
    Felli JC; Leishman DJ
    J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods; 2020 Sep; 105():106898. PubMed ID: 32735877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A simple and robust method for multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
    Chen Y; Liu Y; Chu H; Ting Lee ML; Schmid CH
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):105-121. PubMed ID: 27580758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using integrated nested Laplace approximations.
    Paul M; Riebler A; Bachmann LM; Rue H; Held L
    Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(12):1325-39. PubMed ID: 20101670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.