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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35060123)

  • 1. Reply to Comment on "How Good is Your Model Fit? Weighted Goodness-of-Fit Metrics for Irregular Time Series".
    Collenteur RA
    Ground Water; 2022 Mar; 60(2):165-166. PubMed ID: 35060123
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comment on "How Good is Your Model Fit? Weighted Goodness-of-Fit Metrics for Irregular Time Series".
    Zaadnoordijk WJ
    Ground Water; 2022 Mar; 60(2):162-164. PubMed ID: 35088899
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How Good Is Your Model Fit? Weighted Goodness-of-Fit Metrics for Irregular Time Series.
    Collenteur RA
    Ground Water; 2021 Jul; 59(4):474-478. PubMed ID: 34060080
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Modulation of the goodness of fit in hydrological modelling based on inner balance errors.
    Pellicer-Martínez F; Gomariz-Castillo F; Portela MM; Martínez-Alcalá IM; Martínez-Paz JM
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260117. PubMed ID: 34793576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Goodness-of-fit test for monotone proportional subdistribution hazards assumptions based on weighted residuals.
    Boher JM; Filleron T; Giorgi R; Kramar A; Cook RJ
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):362-377. PubMed ID: 27790725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Benchmarking metrics for inferring functional connectivity from multi-channel EEG and MEG: A simulation study.
    Yu M
    Chaos; 2020 Dec; 30(12):123124. PubMed ID: 33380013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating the goodness of fit in models of sparse medical data: a simulation approach.
    Boyle P; Flowerdew R; Williams A
    Int J Epidemiol; 1997 Jun; 26(3):651-6. PubMed ID: 9222792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of diagnostic classification item response models.
    Hansen M; Cai L; Monroe S; Li Z
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2016 Nov; 69(3):225-252. PubMed ID: 27404336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reply to Comment on 'egs_brachy: a versatile and fast Monte Carlo code for brachytherapy'.
    Thomson RM; Taylor REP; Chamberland MJP; Rogers DWO
    Phys Med Biol; 2018 Feb; 63(3):038002. PubMed ID: 29192606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A common goodness-of-fit framework for neural population models using marked point process time-rescaling.
    Tao L; Weber KE; Arai K; Eden UT
    J Comput Neurosci; 2018 Oct; 45(2):147-162. PubMed ID: 30298220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Simulation of Lake-Groundwater Interaction under Steady-State Flow.
    Lu C; Zhang B; He X; Cao G; Sun Q; Yan L; Qin T; Li T; Li Z
    Ground Water; 2021 Jan; 59(1):90-99. PubMed ID: 32700342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A goodness-of-fit test for the proportional odds regression model.
    Fagerland MW; Hosmer DW
    Stat Med; 2013 Jun; 32(13):2235-49. PubMed ID: 23037691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Discrete time rescaling theorem: determining goodness of fit for discrete time statistical models of neural spiking.
    Haslinger R; Pipa G; Brown E
    Neural Comput; 2010 Oct; 22(10):2477-506. PubMed ID: 20608868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How Well Does Your Phylogenetic Model Fit Your Data?
    A Shepherd D; Klaere S
    Syst Biol; 2019 Jan; 68(1):157-167. PubMed ID: 30329125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Weighted cumulative sum tests for random effect models with binary responses.
    Korre AK; Vasdekis VG
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Aug; 29(8):2167-2178. PubMed ID: 31718452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A new test and graphical tool to assess the goodness of fit of logistic regression models.
    Nattino G; Finazzi S; Bertolini G
    Stat Med; 2016 Feb; 35(5):709-20. PubMed ID: 26439593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing the goodness of fit of logistic regression models in large samples: A modification of the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
    Nattino G; Pennell ML; Lemeshow S
    Biometrics; 2020 Jun; 76(2):549-560. PubMed ID: 32134502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test for autoregressive logistic regression models with applications to patient screening.
    Hansen AM; Jeske D; Kirsch W
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(1):89-108. PubMed ID: 24854578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comment on "The Amazingly Rapid Birth, Growth and Maturing of Digital Computer Modeling in Hydrogeology" by F. J. Molz, 2017, v. 55, no. 2: 281-285.
    Lavenue M
    Ground Water; 2018 Jan; 56(1):4-5. PubMed ID: 29193039
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reply to Schade G. Comment on Hess et al. "Assessing Agreement in Exposure Classifications between Proximity-Based Metrics and Air Monitoring Data in Epidemiology Studies of Unconventional Resource Development.".
    Wendt Hess J; Bachler G; Momin F; Sexton K
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2020 Aug; 17(16):. PubMed ID: 32796578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.