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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37796641)

  • 21. What is the potential measurement error in occupational exposure studies?
    Levin LS; Rice CH; Lemasters GK; Lockey JE; Medvedovic M
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2000 Jun; 50(6):941-7. PubMed ID: 10902387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Planning sample sizes when effect sizes are uncertain: The power-calibrated effect size approach.
    McShane BB; Böckenholt U
    Psychol Methods; 2016 Mar; 21(1):47-60. PubMed ID: 26651984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random-effects meta-analysis.
    Veroniki AA; Jackson D; Bender R; Kuss O; Langan D; Higgins JPT; Knapp G; Salanti G
    Res Synth Methods; 2019 Mar; 10(1):23-43. PubMed ID: 30129707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Jointly pooling aggregated effect sizes and their standard errors from studies with continuous clinical outcomes.
    Almalik O; Zhan Z; Heuvel ERVD
    Biom J; 2022 Oct; 64(7):1340-1360. PubMed ID: 35754152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Assurance for clinical trial design with normally distributed outcomes: Eliciting uncertainty about variances.
    Alhussain ZA; Oakley JE
    Pharm Stat; 2020 Nov; 19(6):827-839. PubMed ID: 32537910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Designing GABA-edited magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies: Considerations of scan duration, signal-to-noise ratio and sample size.
    Mikkelsen M; Loo RS; Puts NAJ; Edden RAE; Harris AD
    J Neurosci Methods; 2018 Jun; 303():86-94. PubMed ID: 29476871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. An experimental study of methods for the analysis of variance components in the inference of laboratory information.
    Kallner A; Theodorsson E
    Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2020 Feb; 80(1):73-80. PubMed ID: 31841049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A Bayesian approach for estimating calibration curves and unknown concentrations in immunoassays.
    Feng F; Sales AP; Kepler TB
    Bioinformatics; 2011 Mar; 27(5):707-12. PubMed ID: 21149344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Variance estimation for effective coverage measures: A simulation study.
    Sauer SM; Pullum T; Wang W; Mallick L; Leslie HH
    J Glob Health; 2020 Jun; 10(1):010506. PubMed ID: 32257160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Is mixed effects modeling or naïve pooled data analysis preferred for the interpretation of single sample per subject toxicokinetic data?
    Hing JP; Woolfrey SG; Greenslade D; Wright PM
    J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn; 2001 Apr; 28(2):193-210. PubMed ID: 11381570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Particle and microorganism enumeration data: enabling quantitative rigor and judicious interpretation.
    Emelko MB; Schmidt PJ; Reilly PM
    Environ Sci Technol; 2010 Mar; 44(5):1720-7. PubMed ID: 20121082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Confidence regions for repeated measures ANOVA power curves based on estimated covariance.
    Gribbin MJ; Chi YY; Stewart PW; Muller KE
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Apr; 13():57. PubMed ID: 23586676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A comparison between traditional and measurement-error growth models for weakfish Cynoscion regalis.
    Hatch J; Jiao Y
    PeerJ; 2016; 4():e2431. PubMed ID: 27688963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effect of multiple error sources on the calibration uncertainty.
    Badocco D; Lavagnini I; Mondin A; Pastore P
    Food Chem; 2015 Jun; 177():147-51. PubMed ID: 25660870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Filtered kriging for spatial data with heterogeneous measurement error variances.
    Christensen WF
    Biometrics; 2011 Sep; 67(3):947-57. PubMed ID: 21361891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Performance of bias-correction methods for exposure measurement error using repeated measurements with and without missing data.
    Batistatou E; McNamee R
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(28):3467-80. PubMed ID: 22733598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A simulation study of extrapolation uncertainty in exposure assessment - Use of pilot study results for site investigation.
    Goodrum PE; Mendelsohn ES; Roberts SM; Stuchal LD
    J Environ Manage; 2024 Apr; 356():120692. PubMed ID: 38547828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A Comparison of the β-Substitution Method and a Bayesian Method for Analyzing Left-Censored Data.
    Huynh T; Quick H; Ramachandran G; Banerjee S; Stenzel M; Sandler DP; Engel LS; Kwok RK; Blair A; Stewart PA
    Ann Occup Hyg; 2016 Jan; 60(1):56-73. PubMed ID: 26209598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Conducting EQ-5D Valuation Studies in Resource-Constrained Countries: The Potential Use of Shrinkage Estimators to Reduce Sample Size.
    Chan KKW; Xie F; Willan AR; Pullenayegum EM
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Jan; 38(1):26-33. PubMed ID: 28823185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Variance estimation methods in samples from household surveys].
    Porto Alves MC; Silva NN
    Rev Saude Publica; 2007 Dec; 41(6):938-46. PubMed ID: 17992355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.