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 *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6407327)

  • 1. Application of visual signal detection concepts to clinical decision analysis.
    Daubs J
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1983 Apr; 60(4):311-5. PubMed ID: 6407327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Statistical and methodological considerations for vision screening.
    Allen DC
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1976 Oct; 53(10):677-84. PubMed ID: 1087833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Vision screening of older people.
    Jessa Z; Evans B; Thomson D; Rowlands G
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2007 Nov; 27(6):527-46. PubMed ID: 17956358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sensitivity and specificity of tests to detect eye disease in an older population.
    Ivers RQ; Optom B; Macaskill P; Cumming RG; Mitchell P
    Ophthalmology; 2001 May; 108(5):968-75. PubMed ID: 11320029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effectiveness of a pinhole method for visual acuity screening.
    Loewenstein JI; Palmberg PF; Connett JE; Wentworth DN
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1985 Feb; 103(2):222-3. PubMed ID: 3977693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mass visual screening via television.
    Flocks M; Rosenthal AR; Hopkins JL
    Ophthalmology; 1978 Nov; 85(11):1141-9. PubMed ID: 733164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The validity of a screening test.
    Reynolds DC
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1982 Jan; 59(1):67-71. PubMed ID: 7055203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The efficacy and cost of alternative strategies for systematic screening for type 2 diabetes in the U.S. population 45-74 years of age.
    Johnson SL; Tabaei BP; Herman WH
    Diabetes Care; 2005 Feb; 28(2):307-11. PubMed ID: 15677784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. CT screening: a trade-off of risks, benefits, and costs.
    Hunink MG; Gazelle GS
    J Clin Invest; 2003 Jun; 111(11):1612-9. PubMed ID: 12782661
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of screening tests for eye conditions in a clinic-based population.
    Ariyasu RG; Lee PP; Linton KP; LaBree LD; Azen SP; Siu AL
    Ophthalmology; 1996 Nov; 103(11):1751-60. PubMed ID: 8942866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimation of the optimal cut off point in a new immunological faecal occult blood test in a corporate colorectal cancer screening programme.
    Itoh M; Takahashi K; Nishida H; Sakagami K; Okubo T
    J Med Screen; 1996; 3(2):66-71. PubMed ID: 8849762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Simplified scoring of the Actionable 8-item screening questionnaire for neurogenic bladder overactivity in multiple sclerosis: a comparative analysis of test performance at different cut-off points.
    Jongen PJ; Blok BF; Heesakkers JP; Heerings M; Lemmens WA; Donders R
    BMC Urol; 2015 Oct; 15():106. PubMed ID: 26498107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Basic principles of ROC analysis.
    Metz CE
    Semin Nucl Med; 1978 Oct; 8(4):283-98. PubMed ID: 112681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The value of screening.
    Love RR; Camilli AE
    Cancer; 1981 Jul; 48(2 Suppl):489-94. PubMed ID: 6791811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Eye screening in general practice with the Arden grating test.
    Harris CM
    Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1981 Apr; 282(6272):1279-80. PubMed ID: 6784818
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Outcomes of a vision screening program for underserved populations in the United States.
    Friedman DS; Cassard SD; Williams SK; Baldonado K; O'Brien RW; Gower EW
    Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 20(4):201-11. PubMed ID: 23865601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Screening for colorectal cancer using faecal blood testing: varying the positive cut-off value.
    Edwards JB
    Pathology; 2005 Dec; 37(6):565-8. PubMed ID: 16373240
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. VCTS chart evaluation as a screening test.
    Maudgal PC; Stout RW; van Balen AT
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1988 Aug; 69(4):399-405. PubMed ID: 3203604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Screening for gynecologic cancer.
    Pretorius G
    Surg Oncol Clin N Am; 1998 Apr; 7(2):263-9. PubMed ID: 9537975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparing diagnostic tests on benefit-risk.
    Pennello G; Pantoja-Galicia N; Evans S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(6):1083-1097. PubMed ID: 27548805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.