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 *

88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3978790)

  • 1. Precision of sensitivity estimations in diagnostic test evaluations. Power functions for comparisons of sensitivities of two tests.
    Linnet K
    Clin Chem; 1985 Apr; 31(4):574-80. PubMed ID: 3978790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of quantitative diagnostic tests: type I error, power, and sample size.
    Linnet K
    Stat Med; 1987 Mar; 6(2):147-58. PubMed ID: 3589244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The evaluation of tests.
    Martin SW
    Can J Comp Med; 1977 Jan; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 556679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests.
    Begg CB
    Stat Med; 1987 Jun; 6(4):411-23. PubMed ID: 3114858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Improvement of sample size calculations for binary diagnostic test assessment.
    Bailly S; Dupont C; Iwaz J; Bossard N; Rabilloud M
    J Investig Med; 2014 Apr; 62(4):687-9. PubMed ID: 24583904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. How Small Is Big: Sample Size and Skewness.
    Piovesana A; Senior G
    Assessment; 2018 Sep; 25(6):793-800. PubMed ID: 27655971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cutoff values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions.
    Leeflang MM; Moons KG; Reitsma JB; Zwinderman AH
    Clin Chem; 2008 Apr; 54(4):729-37. PubMed ID: 18258670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Statistical evaluation of method-comparison data.
    Wu GT; Twomey SL; Thiers RE
    Clin Chem; 1975 Mar; 21(3):315-20. PubMed ID: 1112040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical biostatistics XXXI. On the sensitivity, specificity, and discrimination of diagnostic tests.
    Feinstein AR
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1975 Jan; 17(1):104-16. PubMed ID: 1122664
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Matchmaking and McNemar in the comparison of diagnostic modalities.
    Dwyer AJ
    Radiology; 1991 Feb; 178(2):328-30. PubMed ID: 1987587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing diagnostic tests once an optimal cutoff point has been selected.
    Linnet K; Brandt E
    Clin Chem; 1986 Jul; 32(7):1341-6. PubMed ID: 3719943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Estimating negative likelihood ratio confidence when test sensitivity is 100%: A bootstrapping approach.
    Marill KA; Chang Y; Wong KF; Friedman AB
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Aug; 26(4):1936-1948. PubMed ID: 26152746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Difference of two dependent sensitivities and specificities: Comparison of various approaches.
    Wenzel D; Zapf A
    Biom J; 2013 Sep; 55(5):705-18. PubMed ID: 23828661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detailed analysis of the relative power of direct and indirect association studies and the implications for their interpretation.
    Moskvina V; O'Donovan MC
    Hum Hered; 2007; 64(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 17483598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reference interval estimation: Methodological comparison using extensive simulations and empirical data.
    Daly CH; Higgins V; Adeli K; Grey VL; Hamid JS
    Clin Biochem; 2017 Dec; 50(18):1145-1158. PubMed ID: 28733190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Development and application of an aerosol screening model for size-resolved urban aerosols.
    Stanier CO; Lee SR;
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2014 Jun; (179):3-79. PubMed ID: 25145039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. On establishing reference values.
    Lumsden JH; Mullen K
    Can J Comp Med; 1978 Jul; 42(3):293-301. PubMed ID: 688072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies.
    Flahault A; Cadilhac M; Thomas G
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 58(8):859-62. PubMed ID: 16018921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the likelihood ratios of two binary diagnostic tests in paired designs.
    Nofuentes JA; Del Castillo Jde D
    Stat Med; 2007 Sep; 26(22):4179-201. PubMed ID: 17357992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.