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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37792898)

  • 1. Challenges in the real world use of classification accuracy metrics: From recall and precision to the Matthews correlation coefficient.
    Foody GM
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(10):e0291908. PubMed ID: 37792898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mind your prevalence!
    Guesné SJJ; Hanser T; Werner S; Boobier S; Scott S
    J Cheminform; 2024 Apr; 16(1):43. PubMed ID: 38622648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should replace the ROC AUC as the standard metric for assessing binary classification.
    Chicco D; Jurman G
    BioData Min; 2023 Feb; 16(1):4. PubMed ID: 36800973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) is more reliable than balanced accuracy, bookmaker informedness, and markedness in two-class confusion matrix evaluation.
    Chicco D; Tötsch N; Jurman G
    BioData Min; 2021 Feb; 14(1):13. PubMed ID: 33541410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation.
    Chicco D; Jurman G
    BMC Genomics; 2020 Jan; 21(1):6. PubMed ID: 31898477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A statistical comparison between Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), prevalence threshold, and Fowlkes-Mallows index.
    Chicco D; Jurman G
    J Biomed Inform; 2023 Aug; 144():104426. PubMed ID: 37352899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimal classifier for imbalanced data using Matthews Correlation Coefficient metric.
    Boughorbel S; Jarray F; El-Anbari M
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(6):e0177678. PubMed ID: 28574989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Diagnostic Accuracy of Web-Based COVID-19 Symptom Checkers: Comparison Study.
    Munsch N; Martin A; Gruarin S; Nateqi J; Abdarahmane I; Weingartner-Ortner R; Knapp B
    J Med Internet Res; 2020 Oct; 22(10):e21299. PubMed ID: 33001828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments.
    Cassola N; Baptista-Silva JC; Nakano LC; Flumignan CD; Sesso R; Vasconcelos V; Carvas Junior N; Flumignan RL
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Jul; 7(7):CD013172. PubMed ID: 35815652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimating diagnostic accuracy of multiple binary tests with an imperfect reference standard.
    Albert PS
    Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(5):780-97. PubMed ID: 19101935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. What is test accuracy? Comparing unitary accuracy metrics for cognitive screening instruments.
    Larner AJ
    Neurodegener Dis Manag; 2019 Oct; 9(5):277-281. PubMed ID: 31580226
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
    Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Applying machine learning techniques to predict the risk of lung metastases from rectal cancer: a real-world retrospective study.
    Qiu B; Shen Z; Yang D; Wang Q
    Front Oncol; 2023; 13():1183072. PubMed ID: 37293595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification.
    Alonzo TA; Brinton JT; Ringham BM; Glueck DH
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1852-64. PubMed ID: 21495059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The risk of over-diagnosis in serological testing. Implications for communications strategies.
    Biggeri A; Forni S; Braga M
    Epidemiol Prev; 2020; 44(5-6 Suppl 2):184-192. PubMed ID: 33412809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic tools: utilizing a convolutional neural network (CNN) to assess periodontal bone level radiographically-a retrospective study.
    Alotaibi G; Awawdeh M; Farook FF; Aljohani M; Aldhafiri RM; Aldhoayan M
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Sep; 22(1):399. PubMed ID: 36100856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The power metric: a new statistically robust enrichment-type metric for virtual screening applications with early recovery capability.
    Lopes JCD; Dos Santos FM; Martins-José A; Augustyns K; De Winter H
    J Cheminform; 2017; 9():7. PubMed ID: 28203291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Analysis of a multilevel diagnosis decision support system and its implications: a case study.
    Rodríguez-González A; Torres-Niño J; Mayer MA; Alor-Hernandez G; Wilkinson MD
    Comput Math Methods Med; 2012; 2012():367345. PubMed ID: 23320043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.