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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38060567)

  • 1. Performance of modeling and balancing approach methods when using weights to estimate treatment effects in observational time-to-event settings.
    Barros GWF; Eriksson M; Häggström J
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(12):e0289316. PubMed ID: 38060567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Propensity score analysis methods with balancing constraints: A Monte Carlo study.
    Li Y; Li L
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Apr; 30(4):1119-1142. PubMed ID: 33525962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Minimizing confounding in comparative observational studies with time-to-event outcomes: An extensive comparison of covariate balancing methods using Monte Carlo simulation.
    Cafri G; Fortin S; Austin PC
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2024 Aug; 33(8):1437-1460. PubMed ID: 39053570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Addressing Extreme Propensity Scores in Estimating Counterfactual Survival Functions via the Overlap Weights.
    Cheng C; Li F; Thomas LE; Li FF
    Am J Epidemiol; 2022 May; 191(6):1140-1151. PubMed ID: 35238335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Covariate balance-related propensity score weighting in estimating overall hazard ratio with distributed survival data.
    Huang C; Wei K; Wang C; Yu Y; Qin G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Oct; 23(1):233. PubMed ID: 37833641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Balancing vs modeling approaches to weighting in practice.
    Chattopadhyay A; Hase CH; Zubizarreta JR
    Stat Med; 2020 Oct; 39(24):3227-3254. PubMed ID: 32882755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Propensity score weighting under limited overlap and model misspecification.
    Zhou Y; Matsouaka RA; Thomas L
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Dec; 29(12):3721-3756. PubMed ID: 32693715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Balancing versus modelling in weighted analysis of non-randomised studies with survival outcomes: A simulation study.
    Filla T; Schwender H; Kuss O
    Stat Med; 2024 Jul; 43(17):3140-3163. PubMed ID: 38801062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The role of prediction modeling in propensity score estimation: an evaluation of logistic regression, bCART, and the covariate-balancing propensity score.
    Wyss R; Ellis AR; Brookhart MA; Girman CJ; Jonsson Funk M; LoCasale R; Stürmer T
    Am J Epidemiol; 2014 Sep; 180(6):645-55. PubMed ID: 25143475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate.
    Hade EM; Lu B
    Stat Med; 2014 Jan; 33(1):74-87. PubMed ID: 23787715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. On the use of propensity scores in case of rare exposure.
    Hajage D; Tubach F; Steg PG; Bhatt DL; De Rycke Y
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Mar; 16():38. PubMed ID: 27036963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Using Balancing Weights to Target the Treatment Effect on the Treated when Overlap is Poor.
    Ben-Michael E; Keele L
    Epidemiology; 2023 Sep; 34(5):637-644. PubMed ID: 37368935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Differences in target estimands between different propensity score-based weights.
    Austin PC
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2023 Oct; 32(10):1103-1112. PubMed ID: 37208837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Improving propensity score estimators' robustness to model misspecification using super learner.
    Pirracchio R; Petersen ML; van der Laan M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Jan; 181(2):108-19. PubMed ID: 25515168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.