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)

  • 21. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(2):150-61. PubMed ID: 20925139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Variance estimators for weighted and stratified linear dose-response function estimators using generalized propensity score.
    Garès V; Chauvet G; Hajage D
    Biom J; 2022 Jan; 64(1):33-56. PubMed ID: 34327720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Variance estimation of the risk difference when using propensity-score matching and weighting with time-to-event outcomes.
    Cafri G; Austin PC
    Pharm Stat; 2023; 22(5):880-902. PubMed ID: 37258420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(20):2137-48. PubMed ID: 20108233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Vector-based kernel weighting: A simple estimator for improving precision and bias of average treatment effects in multiple treatment settings.
    Garrido MM; Lum J; Pizer SD
    Stat Med; 2021 Feb; 40(5):1204-1223. PubMed ID: 33327037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study.
    Barrette E; Higuera L; Wherry K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38539082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups.
    Rassen JA; Shelat AA; Franklin JM; Glynn RJ; Solomon DH; Schneeweiss S
    Epidemiology; 2013 May; 24(3):401-9. PubMed ID: 23532053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Propensity score estimators for the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect on the treated may yield very different estimates.
    Pirracchio R; Carone M; Rigon MR; Caruana E; Mebazaa A; Chevret S
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Oct; 25(5):1938-1954. PubMed ID: 24201469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The impact of moderator by confounder interactions in the assessment of treatment effect modification: a simulation study.
    Marsden AM; Dixon WG; Dunn G; Emsley R
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):88. PubMed ID: 35369866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A machine learning compatible method for ordinal propensity score stratification and matching.
    Greene TJ; DeSantis SM; Brown DW; Wilkinson AV; Swartz MD
    Stat Med; 2021 Mar; 40(6):1383-1399. PubMed ID: 33352615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Optimal caliper width for propensity score matching of three treatment groups: a Monte Carlo study.
    Wang Y; Cai H; Li C; Jiang Z; Wang L; Song J; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e81045. PubMed ID: 24349029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios.
    Austin PC
    Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(16):2837-49. PubMed ID: 23239115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Performance of propensity score methods when comparison groups originate from different data sources.
    Hammill BG; Curtis LH; Setoguchi S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2012 May; 21 Suppl 2():81-9. PubMed ID: 22552983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: A simulation study.
    Austin PC; Schuster T
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Oct; 25(5):2214-2237. PubMed ID: 24463885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Multiply robust estimator for the difference in survival functions using pseudo-observations.
    Wang C; Wei K; Huang C; Yu Y; Qin G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Oct; 23(1):247. PubMed ID: 37872495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Assessing covariate balance when using the generalized propensity score with quantitative or continuous exposures.
    Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 May; 28(5):1365-1377. PubMed ID: 29415624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An evaluation of inverse probability weighting using the propensity score for baseline covariate adjustment in smaller population randomised controlled trials with a continuous outcome.
    Raad H; Cornelius V; Chan S; Williamson E; Cro S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Mar; 20(1):70. PubMed ID: 32293286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.