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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35811396)

  • 1. Indirect covariate balance and residual confounding: An applied comparison of propensity score matching and cardinality matching.
    Fortin SP; Schuemie M
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2022 Dec; 31(12):1242-1252. PubMed ID: 35811396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evaluating the comparability of osteoporosis treatments using propensity score and negative control outcome methods in UK and Denmark electronic health record databases.
    Tan EH; Rathod-Mistry T; Strauss VY; O'Kelly J; Giorgianni F; Baxter R; Brunetti VC; Pedersen AB; Ehrenstein V; Prieto-Alhambra D
    J Bone Miner Res; 2024 Aug; 39(7):844-854. PubMed ID: 38619297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cholesterol-lowering effect of statin therapy in a clinical HIV cohort: an application of double propensity score adjustment.
    Levy ME; Ma Y; Magnus M; Younes N; Castel AD;
    Ann Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 44():8-15. PubMed ID: 32204991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of subset matching methods and forms of covariate balance.
    de Los Angeles Resa M; Zubizarreta JR
    Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(27):4961-4979. PubMed ID: 27442072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance.
    Nguyen TL; Collins GS; Spence J; Daurès JP; Devereaux PJ; Landais P; Le Manach Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28454568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2014 Mar; 33(6):1057-69. PubMed ID: 24123228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Five Steps to Successfully Implement and Evaluate Propensity Score Matching in Clinical Research Studies.
    Staffa SJ; Zurakowski D
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Oct; 127(4):1066-1073. PubMed ID: 29324498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An evolutionary algorithm for the direct optimization of covariate balance between nonrandomized populations.
    Privitera S; Sedghamiz H; Hartenstein A; Vaitsiakhovich T; Kleinjung F
    Pharm Stat; 2024; 23(3):288-307. PubMed ID: 38111126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Propensity score matching in otolaryngologic literature: A systematic review and critical appraisal.
    Prasad A; Shin M; Carey RM; Chorath K; Parhar H; Appel S; Moreira A; Rajasekaran K
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0244423. PubMed ID: 33382777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study.
    Weymann D; Chan B; Regier DA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Aug; 23(1):181. PubMed ID: 37559105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching.
    Zhang Z; Kim HJ; Lonjon G; Zhu Y;
    Ann Transl Med; 2019 Jan; 7(1):16. PubMed ID: 30788363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Pelvic fractures in severely injured elderly: a double-adjustment propensity score matched analysis from a level I trauma center.
    Gogna S; Latifi R; Samson DJ; Butler J
    Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg; 2022 Jun; 48(3):2219-2228. PubMed ID: 34432083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Feb; 26(1):201-222. PubMed ID: 25038071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching.
    Lunt M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Jan; 179(2):226-35. PubMed ID: 24114655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of machine learning algorithms and covariate balance measures for propensity score matching and weighting.
    Cannas M; Arpino B
    Biom J; 2019 Jul; 61(4):1049-1072. PubMed ID: 31090108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Measuring the effect of telecare on medical expenditures without bias using the propensity score matching method.
    Akematsu Y; Tsuji M
    Telemed J E Health; 2012 Dec; 18(10):743-7. PubMed ID: 23072633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Myers J; Glynn RJ; Rothman KJ; Schneeweiss S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():69-80. PubMed ID: 22552982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Application and comparison of generalized propensity score matching versus pairwise propensity score matching.
    Cui ZL; Hess LM; Goodloe R; Faries D
    J Comp Eff Res; 2018 Sep; 7(9):923-934. PubMed ID: 29925271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.