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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37524119)

  • 1. Unreliable Continuous Treatment Indicators in Propensity Score Analysis.
    Fish GA; Leite WL
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2024; 59(2):187-205. PubMed ID: 37524119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Comparison of Latent Variable Propensity Score Models to Traditional Propensity Score Models under Conditions of Covariate Unreliability.
    Whittaker TA
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(4):625-646. PubMed ID: 31530179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(11):1874-1894. PubMed ID: 29508424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.
    Austin PC
    Int J Biostat; 2009 Apr; 5(1):Article 13. PubMed ID: 20949126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Neural Networks to Estimate Generalized Propensity Scores for Continuous Treatment Doses.
    Collier ZK; Leite WL; Karpyn A
    Eval Rev; 2021 Mar; ():193841X21992199. PubMed ID: 33653165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How Do Propensity Score Methods Measure Up in the Presence of Measurement Error? A Monte Carlo Study.
    Rodríguez De Gil P; Bellara AP; Lanehart RE; Lee RS; Kim ES; Kromrey JD
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2015; 50(5):520-32. PubMed ID: 26610250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of balancing scores using the ANCOVA approach for estimating average treatment effect: a simulation study.
    Tu C; Koh WY
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):508-515. PubMed ID: 30561245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. When does measurement error in covariates impact causal effect estimates? Analytic derivations of different scenarios and an empirical illustration.
    Sengewald MA; Steiner PM; Pohl S
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2019 May; 72(2):244-270. PubMed ID: 30345554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimation of average treatment effect based on a multi-index propensity score.
    Xu J; Wei K; Wang C; Huang C; Xue Y; Zhang R; Qin G; Yu Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Dec; 22(1):337. PubMed ID: 36577950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.
    Austin PC; Grootendorst P; Anderson GM
    Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(4):734-53. PubMed ID: 16708349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Oversampling and replacement strategies in propensity score matching: a critical review focused on small sample size in clinical settings.
    Bottigliengo D; Baldi I; Lanera C; Lorenzoni G; Bejko J; Bottio T; Tarzia V; Carrozzini M; Gerosa G; Berchialla P; Gregori D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):256. PubMed ID: 34809559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Propensity scores based methods for estimating average treatment effect and average treatment effect among treated: A comparative study.
    Abdia Y; Kulasekera KB; Datta S; Boakye M; Kong M
    Biom J; 2017 Sep; 59(5):967-985. PubMed ID: 28436047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on survival or time-to-event outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Aug; 28(8):2348-2367. PubMed ID: 29869566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: a simulation study.
    Austin PC; Small DS
    Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(24):4306-19. PubMed ID: 25087884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study.
    Gayat E; Resche-Rigon M; Mary JY; Porcher R
    Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(3):222-9. PubMed ID: 22411785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes.
    Austin PC; Stuart EA
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1654-1670. PubMed ID: 25934643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance evaluation of regression splines for propensity score adjustment in post-market safety analysis with multiple treatments.
    Tian Y; Baro E; Zhang R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(5):810-821. PubMed ID: 31502924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bootstrap vs asymptotic variance estimation when using propensity score weighting with continuous and binary outcomes.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2022 Sep; 41(22):4426-4443. PubMed ID: 35841200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.