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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37303265)

  • 1. How does a local instrumental variable method perform across settings with instruments of differing strengths? A simulation study and an evaluation of emergency surgery.
    Moler-Zapata S; Grieve R; Basu A; O'Neill S
    Health Econ; 2023 Sep; 32(9):2113-2126. PubMed ID: 37303265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Local Instrumental Variable Methods to Address Confounding and Heterogeneity when Using Electronic Health Records: An Application to Emergency Surgery.
    Moler-Zapata S; Grieve R; Lugo-Palacios D; Hutchings A; Silverwood R; Keele L; Kircheis T; Cromwell D; Smart N; Hinchliffe R; O'Neill S
    Med Decis Making; 2022 Nov; 42(8):1010-1026. PubMed ID: 35607984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.
    John ER; Abrams KR; Brightling CE; Sheehan NA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Nov; 19(1):207. PubMed ID: 31726969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study.
    Hossain MB; Mosquera L; Karim ME
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Feb; 22(1):46. PubMed ID: 35172746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding.
    Boef AG; Dekkers OM; Vandenbroucke JP; le Cessie S
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Nov; 67(11):1258-64. PubMed ID: 25124167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Approximation of bias and mean-squared error in two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses.
    Deng L; Zhang H; Song L; Yu K
    Biometrics; 2020 Jun; 76(2):369-379. PubMed ID: 31651042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 2SLS versus 2SRI: Appropriate methods for rare outcomes and/or rare exposures.
    Basu A; Coe NB; Chapman CG
    Health Econ; 2018 Jun; 27(6):937-955. PubMed ID: 29577493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing the ability of an instrumental variable causal forest algorithm to personalize treatment evidence using observational data: the case of early surgery for shoulder fracture.
    Brooks JM; Chapman CG; Floyd SB; Chen BK; Thigpen CA; Kissenberth M
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jul; 22(1):190. PubMed ID: 35818028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On a preference-based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding-by-indication.
    Li Y; Lee Y; Wolfe RA; Morgenstern H; Zhang J; Port FK; Robinson BM
    Stat Med; 2015 Mar; 34(7):1150-68. PubMed ID: 25546152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Bias and mean squared error in Mendelian randomization with invalid instrumental variables.
    Deng L; Fu S; Yu K
    Genet Epidemiol; 2024 Feb; 48(1):27-41. PubMed ID: 37970963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.
    Myers JA; Rassen JA; Gagne JJ; Huybrechts KF; Schneeweiss S; Rothman KJ; Joffe MM; Glynn RJ
    Am J Epidemiol; 2011 Dec; 174(11):1213-22. PubMed ID: 22025356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The productivity of mental health care: an instrumental variable approach.
    Lu M
    J Ment Health Policy Econ; 1999 Jun; 2(2):59-71. PubMed ID: 11967410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Treatment Effect Estimation Using Nonlinear Two-Stage Instrumental Variable Estimators: Another Cautionary Note.
    Chapman CG; Brooks JM
    Health Serv Res; 2016 Dec; 51(6):2375-2394. PubMed ID: 26891780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Performance of instrumental variable methods in cohort and nested case-control studies: a simulation study.
    Uddin MJ; Groenwold RH; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Roes KC; Hoes AW; Klungel OH
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2014 Feb; 23(2):165-77. PubMed ID: 24306965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Some cautions on the use of instrumental variables estimators in outcomes research: how bias in instrumental variables estimators is affected by instrument strength, instrument contamination, and sample size.
    Crown WH; Henk HJ; Vanness DJ
    Value Health; 2011 Dec; 14(8):1078-84. PubMed ID: 22152177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools: a systematic review.
    Filges T; Sonne-Schmidt CS; Nielsen BCV
    Campbell Syst Rev; 2018; 14(1):1-107. PubMed ID: 37131395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization.
    Davies NM; von Hinke Kessler Scholder S; Farbmacher H; Burgess S; Windmeijer F; Smith GD
    Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(3):454-68. PubMed ID: 25382280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Some statistical consideration in transcriptome-wide association studies.
    Xue H; Pan W;
    Genet Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 44(3):221-232. PubMed ID: 31821608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.