142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35641659)
1. A practical solution to estimate the sample size required for clinical prediction models generated from observational research on data.
Baeza-Delgado C; Cerdá Alberich L; Carot-Sierra JM; Veiga-Canuto D; Martínez de Las Heras B; Raza B; Martí-Bonmatí L
Eur Radiol Exp; 2022 Jun; 6(1):22. PubMed ID: 35641659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. PRIMAGE project: predictive in silico multiscale analytics to support childhood cancer personalised evaluation empowered by imaging biomarkers.
Martí-Bonmatí L; Alberich-Bayarri Á; Ladenstein R; Blanquer I; Segrelles JD; Cerdá-Alberich L; Gkontra P; Hero B; García-Aznar JM; Keim D; Jentner W; Seymour K; Jiménez-Pastor A; González-Valverde I; Martínez de Las Heras B; Essiaf S; Walker D; Rochette M; Bubak M; Mestres J; Viceconti M; Martí-Besa G; Cañete A; Richmond P; Wertheim KY; Gubala T; Kasztelnik M; Meizner J; Nowakowski P; Gilpérez S; Suárez A; Aznar M; Restante G; Neri E
Eur Radiol Exp; 2020 Apr; 4(1):22. PubMed ID: 32246291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. External validation of clinical prediction models: simulation-based sample size calculations were more reliable than rules-of-thumb.
Snell KIE; Archer L; Ensor J; Bonnett LJ; Debray TPA; Phillips B; Collins GS; Riley RD
J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Jul; 135():79-89. PubMed ID: 33596458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Sample size for binary logistic prediction models: Beyond events per variable criteria.
van Smeden M; Moons KG; de Groot JA; Collins GS; Altman DG; Eijkemans MJ; Reitsma JB
Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Aug; 28(8):2455-2474. PubMed ID: 29966490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Developing clinical prediction models when adhering to minimum sample size recommendations: The importance of quantifying bootstrap variability in tuning parameters and predictive performance.
Martin GP; Riley RD; Collins GS; Sperrin M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Dec; 30(12):2545-2561. PubMed ID: 34623193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Penalization and shrinkage methods produced unreliable clinical prediction models especially when sample size was small.
Riley RD; Snell KIE; Martin GP; Whittle R; Archer L; Sperrin M; Collins GS
J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Apr; 132():88-96. PubMed ID: 33307188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Sample size requirements are not being considered in studies developing prediction models for binary outcomes: a systematic review.
Dhiman P; Ma J; Qi C; Bullock G; Sergeant JC; Riley RD; Collins GS
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):188. PubMed ID: 37598153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. External validation of the diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma survival prediction model: a collaborative report from the International DIPG Registry and the SIOPE DIPG Registry.
Veldhuijzen van Zanten SEM; Lane A; Heymans MW; Baugh J; Chaney B; Hoffman LM; Doughman R; Jansen MHA; Sanchez E; Vandertop WP; Kaspers GJL; van Vuurden DG; Fouladi M; Jones BV; Leach J
J Neurooncol; 2017 Aug; 134(1):231-240. PubMed ID: 28560664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sample size calculation for meta-epidemiological studies.
Giraudeau B; Higgins JP; Tavernier E; Trinquart L
Stat Med; 2016 Jan; 35(2):239-50. PubMed ID: 26286683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Adaptive sample size determination for the development of clinical prediction models.
Christodoulou E; van Smeden M; Edlinger M; Timmerman D; Wanitschek M; Steyerberg EW; Van Calster B
Diagn Progn Res; 2021 Mar; 5(1):6. PubMed ID: 33745449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The relationship between statistical power and predictor distribution in multilevel logistic regression: a simulation-based approach.
Olvera Astivia OL; Gadermann A; Guhn M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 May; 19(1):97. PubMed ID: 31072299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sample sizes of prediction model studies in prostate cancer were rarely justified and often insufficient.
Collins SD; Peek N; Riley RD; Martin GP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 May; 133():53-60. PubMed ID: 33383128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Survival prediction model of children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma based on clinical and radiological criteria.
Jansen MH; Veldhuijzen van Zanten SE; Sanchez Aliaga E; Heymans MW; Warmuth-Metz M; Hargrave D; van der Hoeven EJ; Gidding CE; de Bont ES; Eshghi OS; Reddingius R; Peeters CM; Schouten-van Meeteren AY; Gooskens RH; Granzen B; Paardekooper GM; Janssens GO; Noske DP; Barkhof F; Kramm CM; Vandertop WP; Kaspers GJ; van Vuurden DG
Neuro Oncol; 2015 Jan; 17(1):160-6. PubMed ID: 24903904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
Brookes ST; Whitley E; Peters TJ; Mulheran PA; Egger M; Davey Smith G
Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(33):1-56. PubMed ID: 11701102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Sample size considerations and predictive performance of multinomial logistic prediction models.
de Jong VMT; Eijkemans MJC; van Calster B; Timmerman D; Moons KGM; Steyerberg EW; van Smeden M
Stat Med; 2019 Apr; 38(9):1601-1619. PubMed ID: 30614028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Estimation of required sample size for external validation of risk models for binary outcomes.
Pavlou M; Qu C; Omar RZ; Seaman SR; Steyerberg EW; White IR; Ambler G
Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Oct; 30(10):2187-2206. PubMed ID: 33881369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Development of a clinical scale for assessment of patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) receiving experimental therapy: the PONScore.
Hollingworth MA; Zacharoulis S
J Neurooncol; 2020 Sep; 149(2):263-272. PubMed ID: 32902768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Neuroblastoma and DIPG Organoid Coculture System for Personalized Assessment of Novel Anticancer Immunotherapies.
M Kholosy W; Derieppe M; van den Ham F; Ober K; Su Y; Custers L; Schild L; M J van Zogchel L; M Wellens L; R Ariese H; Szanto CL; Wienke J; Dierselhuis MP; van Vuurden D; Dolman EM; Molenaar JJ
J Pers Med; 2021 Aug; 11(9):. PubMed ID: 34575646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Confidence intervals and sample-size calculations for the sisterhood method of estimating maternal mortality.
Hanley JA; Hagen CA; Shiferaw T
Stud Fam Plann; 1996; 27(4):220-7. PubMed ID: 8875734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mapping clinical outcomes to generic preference-based outcome measures: development and comparison of methods.
Hernández Alava M; Wailoo A; Pudney S; Gray L; Manca A
Health Technol Assess; 2020 Jun; 24(34):1-68. PubMed ID: 32613941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
