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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38953860)

  • 1. TORONTO: A trial-oriented multidimensional psychometric testing algorithm.
    Shi RB; Eizenman M; Li-Han LY; Wong W
    J Vis; 2024 Jul; 24(7):2. PubMed ID: 38953860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A new static visual field test algorithm: the Ambient Interactive ZEST (AIZE).
    Nomoto H; Matsumoto C; Okuyama S; Kimura S; Inoue S; Yamanaka K; Kusaka S
    Sci Rep; 2023 Sep; 13(1):14945. PubMed ID: 37696993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of a variability-adjusted algorithm on the efficiency of perimetric testing.
    Gardiner SK
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 May; 55(5):2983-92. PubMed ID: 24713484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation.
    Turpin A; McKendrick AM; Johnson CA; Vingrys AJ
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Nov; 44(11):4787-95. PubMed ID: 14578400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Response times across the visual field: empirical observations and application to threshold determination.
    McKendrick AM; Denniss J; Turpin A
    Vision Res; 2014 Aug; 101():1-10. PubMed ID: 24802595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Targeted spatial sampling using GOANNA improves detection of visual field progression.
    Chong LX; Turpin A; McKendrick AM
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2015 Mar; 35(2):155-69. PubMed ID: 25683867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Spatial Entropy Pursuit for Fast and Accurate Perimetry Testing.
    Wild D; Kucur SS; Sznitman R
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Jul; 58(9):3414-3424. PubMed ID: 28692736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Optical Coherence Tomography Analysis Based Prediction of Humphrey 24-2 Visual Field Thresholds in Patients With Glaucoma.
    Guo Z; Kwon YH; Lee K; Wang K; Wahle A; Alward WLM; Fingert JH; Bettis DI; Johnson CA; Garvin MK; Sonka M; Abràmoff MD
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2017 Aug; 58(10):3975-3985. PubMed ID: 28796875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Customized, automated stimulus location choice for assessment of visual field defects.
    Chong LX; McKendrick AM; Ganeshrao SB; Turpin A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 Apr; 55(5):3265-74. PubMed ID: 24781947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Advantages of terminating Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST) with dynamic criteria for white-on-white perimetry.
    McKendrick AM; Turpin A
    Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Nov; 82(11):981-7. PubMed ID: 16317375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Retesting visual fields: utilizing prior information to decrease test-retest variability in glaucoma.
    Turpin A; Jankovic D; McKendrick AM
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Apr; 48(4):1627-34. PubMed ID: 17389493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma.
    Spry PG; Johnson CA; McKendrick AM; Turpin A
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jan; 87(1):107-12. PubMed ID: 12488273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quantification and Predictors of Visual Field Variability in Healthy, Glaucoma Suspect, and Glaucomatous Eyes Using SITA-Faster.
    Tan JCK; Agar A; Kalloniatis M; Phu J
    Ophthalmology; 2024 Jun; 131(6):658-666. PubMed ID: 38110124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are you sure? The relationship between response certainty and performance in visual detection using a perimetry-style task.
    Bedggood P; Ahmad A; Chen A; Lim R; Maqsudi S; Metha A
    J Vis; 2020 Aug; 20(8):27. PubMed ID: 32845962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Spatial resolution of the tendency-oriented perimetry algorithm.
    Anderson AJ
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 May; 44(5):1962-8. PubMed ID: 12714630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Effect of Testing Reliability on Visual Field Sensitivity in Normal Eyes: The Singapore Chinese Eye Study.
    Tan NYQ; Tham YC; Koh V; Nguyen DQ; Cheung CY; Aung T; Wong TY; Cheng CY
    Ophthalmology; 2018 Jan; 125(1):15-21. PubMed ID: 28863943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability.
    Yohannan J; Wang J; Brown J; Chauhan BC; Boland MV; Friedman DS; Ramulu PY
    Ophthalmology; 2017 Nov; 124(11):1612-1620. PubMed ID: 28676280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of false-negative responses for full threshold and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal observers.
    Johnson CA; Sherman K; Doyle C; Wall M
    J Glaucoma; 2014; 23(5):288-92. PubMed ID: 23632399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer.
    Hirasawa K; Shoji N
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
    Conway ML; Hosking SL; Zhu H; Cubbidge RP
    BMC Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 14():166. PubMed ID: 25539569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.