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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3974612)

  • 1. A nonparametric approach to the statistical analysis of mutagenicity data.
    Wahrendorf J; Mahon GA; Schumacher M
    Mutat Res; 1985; 147(1-2):5-13. PubMed ID: 3974612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Nonparametric methods. Clinical applications.
    Brown GW; Hayden GF
    Clin Pediatr (Phila); 1985 Sep; 24(9):490-8. PubMed ID: 4017399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A statistical method for analysis of mouse lymphoma L5178Y cell TK locus forward mutation assay. Comparison of results among three laboratories.
    Irr JD; Snee RD
    Mutat Res; 1982 Oct; 97(5):371-92. PubMed ID: 7144804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. An empirical approach to the statistical analysis of mutagenesis data from the Salmonella test.
    Bernstein L; Kaldor J; McCann J; Pike MC
    Mutat Res; 1982 Aug; 97(4):267-81. PubMed ID: 6750390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An evaluation of Salmonella (Ames) test data in the published literature: application of statistical procedures and analysis of mutagenic potency.
    McCann J; Horn L; Kaldor J
    Mutat Res; 1984 Jul; 134(1):1-47. PubMed ID: 6379432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Statistical methods for the Ames Salmonella assay: a review.
    Kim BS; Margolin BH
    Mutat Res; 1999 Jan; 436(1):113-22. PubMed ID: 9878704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Parametric and nonparametric population methods: their comparative performance in analysing a clinical dataset and two Monte Carlo simulation studies.
    Bustad A; Terziivanov D; Leary R; Port R; Schumitzky A; Jelliffe R
    Clin Pharmacokinet; 2006; 45(4):365-83. PubMed ID: 16584284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluating statistical analyses and reproducibility of microbial mutagenicity assays.
    Chu KC; Patel KM; Lin AH; Tarone RE; Linhart MS; Dunkel VC
    Mutat Res; 1981 Jun; 85(3):119-32. PubMed ID: 7022184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Statistical versus biological significance of genetic toxicity data.
    Ashby J
    Mutat Res; 1994 Jul; 308(1):109-10. PubMed ID: 7516478
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments.
    Holmes AP; Blair RC; Watson JD; Ford I
    J Cereb Blood Flow Metab; 1996 Jan; 16(1):7-22. PubMed ID: 8530558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Statistical evaluation of mutagenicity test data: recommendations of the U.K. Environmental Mutagen Society.
    Kirkland DJ
    Environ Health Perspect; 1994 Jan; 102 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):43-7. PubMed ID: 8187723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Statistical model to estimate a threshold dose and its confidence limits for the analysis of sublinear dose-response relationships, exemplified for mutagenicity data.
    Lutz WK; Lutz RW
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):118-22. PubMed ID: 19477296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recommendations for statistical designs of in vivo mutagenicity tests with regard to subsequent statistical analysis.
    Adler ID; Bootman J; Favor J; Hook G; Schriever-Schwemmer G; Welzl G; Whorton E; Yoshimura I; Hayashi M
    Mutat Res; 1998 Sep; 417(1):19-30. PubMed ID: 9729247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A quantitative comparison of a percentile rule with a 2-fold rule for assessing mutagenicity in the Ames assay.
    Carnes BA; Dornfeld SS; Peak MJ
    Mutat Res; 1985; 147(1-2):15-21. PubMed ID: 3883149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Dose-response and thresholds in mutagenicity studies: a statistical testing approach.
    Hothorn LA; Bretz F
    Altern Lab Anim; 2003 Jun; 31 Suppl 1():97-103. PubMed ID: 15595904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optimal experimental design and sample size for the statistical evaluation of data from somatic mutation and recombination tests (SMART) in Drosophila.
    Frei H; Würgler FE
    Mutat Res; 1995 Apr; 334(2):247-58. PubMed ID: 7885379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A new powerful nonparametric rank test for ordered alternative problem.
    Shan G; Young D; Kang L
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e112924. PubMed ID: 25405757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Short-term assays to predict carcinogenicity. Statistical analysis of data from in-vitro assays of mutagenesis.
    Breslow N; Kaldor J
    IARC Sci Publ; 1986; (83):457-81. PubMed ID: 3305350
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interpretation of research data: selected statistical procedures.
    Jackson RA
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1980 Dec; 37(12):1673-80. PubMed ID: 7446542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Critical sample sizes for determining the statistical significance of mutation frequencies.
    Mann RC; Popp DM; Popp RA
    Mutat Res; 1985; 143(1-2):93-100. PubMed ID: 4000147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.