149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36633901)
21. Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review.
Andaur Navarro CL; Damen JAA; Takada T; Nijman SWJ; Dhiman P; Ma J; Collins GS; Bajpai R; Riley RD; Moons KGM; Hooft L
BMJ; 2021 Oct; 375():n2281. PubMed ID: 34670780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Prediction Models for Gastric Cancer Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review.
Gu J; Chen R; Wang SM; Li M; Fan Z; Li X; Zhou J; Sun K; Wei W
Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2022 May; 15(5):309-318. PubMed ID: 35017181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Evaluating risk prediction models for adults with heart failure: A systematic literature review.
Di Tanna GL; Wirtz H; Burrows KL; Globe G
PLoS One; 2020; 15(1):e0224135. PubMed ID: 31940350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
Gates M; Pillay J; Nuspl M; Wingert A; Vandermeer B; Hartling L
Syst Rev; 2023 Mar; 12(1):51. PubMed ID: 36945065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Health-related quality of life in early breast cancer.
Groenvold M
Dan Med Bull; 2010 Sep; 57(9):B4184. PubMed ID: 20816024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence.
Collins GS; Dhiman P; Andaur Navarro CL; Ma J; Hooft L; Reitsma JB; Logullo P; Beam AL; Peng L; Van Calster B; van Smeden M; Riley RD; Moons KG
BMJ Open; 2021 Jul; 11(7):e048008. PubMed ID: 34244270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Systematic metareview of prediction studies demonstrates stable trends in bias and low PROBAST inter-rater agreement.
Langenhuijsen LFS; Janse RJ; Venema E; Kent DM; van Diepen M; Dekker FW; Steyerberg EW; de Jong Y
J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Jul; 159():159-173. PubMed ID: 37142166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies.
Aldin A; Umlauff L; Estcourt LJ; Collins G; Moons KG; Engert A; Kobe C; von Tresckow B; Haque M; Foroutan F; Kreuzberger N; Trivella M; Skoetz N
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2020 Jan; 1(1):CD012643. PubMed ID: 31930780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Inter-Rater Agreement in Assessing Risk of Bias in Melanoma Prediction Studies Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST): Results from a Controlled Experiment on the Effect of Specific Rater Training.
Kaiser I; Pfahlberg AB; Mathes S; Uter W; Diehl K; Steeb T; Heppt MV; Gefeller O
J Clin Med; 2023 Mar; 12(5):. PubMed ID: 36902763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. External validation of 87 clinical prediction models supporting clinical decisions for breast cancer patients.
Hueting TA; van Maaren MC; Hendriks MP; Koffijberg H; Siesling S
Breast; 2023 Jun; 69():382-391. PubMed ID: 37087910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Evaluation of Risk of Bias in Neuroimaging-Based Artificial Intelligence Models for Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.
Chen Z; Liu X; Yang Q; Wang YJ; Miao K; Gong Z; Yu Y; Leonov A; Liu C; Feng Z; Chuan-Peng H
JAMA Netw Open; 2023 Mar; 6(3):e231671. PubMed ID: 36877519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Systematic review of prediction models for postacute care destination decision-making.
Kennedy EE; Bowles KH; Aryal S
J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2021 Dec; 29(1):176-186. PubMed ID: 34757383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies.
Aldin A; Umlauff L; Estcourt LJ; Collins G; Moons KG; Engert A; Kobe C; von Tresckow B; Haque M; Foroutan F; Kreuzberger N; Trivella M; Skoetz N
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2019 Sep; 9(9):CD012643. PubMed ID: 31525824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Examining Bias and Reporting in Oral Health Prediction Modeling Studies.
Du M; Haag D; Song Y; Lynch J; Mittinty M
J Dent Res; 2020 Apr; 99(4):374-387. PubMed ID: 32028825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Di J; Li X; Yang J; Li L; Yu X
Risk Manag Healthc Policy; 2022; 15():1189-1201. PubMed ID: 35702399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Mammographic density, endocrine therapy and breast cancer risk: a prognostic and predictive biomarker review.
Atakpa EC; Thorat MA; Cuzick J; Brentnall AR
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2021 Oct; 10(10):CD013091. PubMed ID: 34697802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Does poor methodological quality of prediction modeling studies translate to poor model performance? An illustration in traumatic brain injury.
Helmrich IRAR; Mikolić A; Kent DM; Lingsma HF; Wynants L; Steyerberg EW; van Klaveren D
Diagn Progn Res; 2022 May; 6(1):8. PubMed ID: 35509061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Clinical Prediction Models for Pancreatic Cancer in General and At-Risk Populations: A Systematic Review.
Santos R; Coleman HG; Cairnduff V; Kunzmann AT
Am J Gastroenterol; 2023 Jan; 118(1):26-40. PubMed ID: 36148840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
