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 *

415 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9131751)

  • 1. An empirical comparison of statistical tests for assessing the proportional hazards assumption of Cox's model.
    Ng'andu NH
    Stat Med; 1997 Mar; 16(6):611-26. PubMed ID: 9131751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Simulation program for estimating statistical power of Cox's proportional hazards model assuming no specific distribution for the survival time.
    Akazawa K; Nakamura T; Moriguchi S; Shimada M; Nose Y
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 1991 Jul; 35(3):203-12. PubMed ID: 1935013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of methods for estimating the attributable risk in the context of survival analysis.
    Gassama M; Bénichou J; Dartois L; Thiébaut AC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):10. PubMed ID: 28114895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Application of random survival forests in understanding the determinants of under-five child mortality in Uganda in the presence of covariates that satisfy the proportional and non-proportional hazards assumption.
    Nasejje JB; Mwambi H
    BMC Res Notes; 2017 Sep; 10(1):459. PubMed ID: 28882171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On proportional hazards assumption under the random effects models.
    Xu R; Gamst A
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2007 Sep; 13(3):317-32. PubMed ID: 17638076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A simulation study comparing the power of nine tests of the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P; B Parmar MK
    Trials; 2020 Apr; 21(1):315. PubMed ID: 32252820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of Aalen's additive and Cox proportional hazards models for breast cancer survival: analysis of population- based data from British Columbia, Canada.
    Abadi A; Saadat S; Yavari P; Bajdik C; Jalili P
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2011; 12(11):3113-6. PubMed ID: 22393999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sequential tests for non-proportional hazards data.
    Brückner M; Brannath W
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2017 Jul; 23(3):339-352. PubMed ID: 26969674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dealing with the proportional hazards assumption when using the proportional hazards model with a single independent variable.
    Shibata A; Hamajima N; Tamakoshi A; Suzuki S; Sasaki R; Aoki K
    Jpn J Clin Oncol; 1989 Sep; 19(3):195-201. PubMed ID: 2810819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A smooth test in proportional hazard survival models using local partial likelihood fitting.
    Kauermann G; Berger U
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2003 Dec; 9(4):373-93. PubMed ID: 15000411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of survival distributions in clinical trials: A practical guidance.
    Chen X; Wang X; Chen K; Zheng Y; Chappell RJ; Dey J
    Clin Trials; 2020 Oct; 17(5):507-521. PubMed ID: 32594788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Statistics review 12: survival analysis.
    Bewick V; Cheek L; Ball J
    Crit Care; 2004 Oct; 8(5):389-94. PubMed ID: 15469602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Model inconsistency, illustrated by the Cox proportional hazards model.
    Ford I; Norrie J; Ahmadi S
    Stat Med; 1995 Apr; 14(8):735-46. PubMed ID: 7644855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An approach to trial design and analysis in the era of non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect.
    Royston P; Parmar MK
    Trials; 2014 Aug; 15():314. PubMed ID: 25098243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Average Hazard Ratio - A Good Effect Measure for Time-to-event Endpoints when the Proportional Hazard Assumption is Violated?
    Rauch G; Brannath W; Brückner M; Kieser M
    Methods Inf Med; 2018 May; 57(3):89-100. PubMed ID: 29719915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Tests for the proportional intensity assumption based on the score process.
    Kvaløy JT; Neef LR
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2004 Jun; 10(2):139-57. PubMed ID: 15293629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Testing the proportional hazards assumption in cox regression and dealing with possible non-proportionality in total joint arthroplasty research: methodological perspectives and review.
    Kuitunen I; Ponkilainen VT; Uimonen MM; Eskelinen A; Reito A
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2021 May; 22(1):489. PubMed ID: 34049528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of time-to-event data using a flexible mixture model under a constraint of proportional hazards.
    Liu GF; Liao JJZ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):783-796. PubMed ID: 32589509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Relative survival: comparison of regressive models and advice for the user.
    Giorgi R; Hédelin G; Schaffer P
    J Epidemiol Biostat; 2001; 6(6):455-62. PubMed ID: 11831681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Partitioned log-rank tests for the overall homogeneity of hazard rate functions.
    Liu Y; Yin G
    Lifetime Data Anal; 2017 Jul; 23(3):400-425. PubMed ID: 26995734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.