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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7691997)

  • 1. A new system of visual presentation of analysis of test performance: the "double-ring" diagram.
    Stefadouros MA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1993 Oct; 46(10):1151-8. PubMed ID: 7691997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visual presentation of statistical concepts in diagnostic testing: the 2 × 2 diagram.
    Johnson KM; Johnson BK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jul; 203(1):W14-20. PubMed ID: 24951225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Graphic representation of numerically calculated predictive values: an easily comprehended method of evaluating diagnostic tests.
    Daniel BL; Daniel TM
    Med Decis Making; 1993; 13(4):355-8. PubMed ID: 8246708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified.
    Chock C; Irwig L; Berry G; Glasziou P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1211-7. PubMed ID: 9393377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients.
    Garcia-Retamero R; Hoffrage U
    Soc Sci Med; 2013 Apr; 83():27-33. PubMed ID: 23465201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve: principles and application in biology].
    Delacour H; Servonnet A; Perrot A; Vigezzi JF; Ramirez JM
    Ann Biol Clin (Paris); 2005; 63(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 15771972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Seeing is believing: good graphic design principles for medical research.
    Duke SP; Bancken F; Crowe B; Soukup M; Botsis T; Forshee R
    Stat Med; 2015 Sep; 34(22):3040-59. PubMed ID: 26112209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The interpretation of diagnostic test: a primer for physiotherapists.
    Davidson M
    Aust J Physiother; 2002; 48(3):227-32. PubMed ID: 12217073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of results of adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation and low-dose dexamethasone suppression tests with necropsy findings in dogs: 81 cases (1985-1995).
    Van Liew CH; Greco DS; Salman MD
    J Am Vet Med Assoc; 1997 Aug; 211(3):322-5. PubMed ID: 9262671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic or screening test accuracy when the reference standard is imperfect.
    Walter SD; Macaskill P; Lord SJ; Irwig L
    Stat Med; 2012 May; 31(11-12):1129-38. PubMed ID: 22351623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An investigation of new toxicity test method performance in validation studies: 1. Toxicity test methods that have predictive capacity no greater than chance.
    Bruner LH; Carr GJ; Harbell JW; Curren RD
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2002 Jun; 21(6):305-12. PubMed ID: 12195934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Screening for disease: making evidence-based choices.
    Fields MM; Chevlen E
    Clin J Oncol Nurs; 2006 Feb; 10(1):73-6. PubMed ID: 16482730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How often should we expect to be wrong? Statistical power, P values, and the expected prevalence of false discoveries.
    Marino MJ
    Biochem Pharmacol; 2018 May; 151():226-233. PubMed ID: 29248599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Visualizing the impact of prevalence on a diagnostic test.
    Rehling M
    Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2010 Oct; 70(6):458-61. PubMed ID: 20645678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
    Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Roaming through methodology. XXXII. False test results].
    van der Weijden T; van den Akker M
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 May; 145(19):906-8. PubMed ID: 11387865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection.
    Obuchowski NA; Mazzone PJ; Dachman AH
    Eur Radiol; 2010 Mar; 20(3):584-94. PubMed ID: 19763582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reflections on accuracy.
    Gambino B
    J Gambl Stud; 2006 Dec; 22(4):393-404. PubMed ID: 17096201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity values can be back-calculated when the odds ratios are known.
    Simel DL; Easter J; Tomlinson G
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Apr; 66(4):458-60. PubMed ID: 23021858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Computers in paediatrics. 18. Medical decision making: computer program to calculate sensitivity, specificity, false positive and negative rates, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy of a diagnostic test.
    Yip WC; Tay JS; Ho TF; Wong HB
    J Singapore Paediatr Soc; 1986; 28(1-2):74-8. PubMed ID: 3531721
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.