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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9147604)

  • 1. Comparing two diagnostic tests against the same "gold standard" in the same sample.
    Bloch DA
    Biometrics; 1997 Mar; 53(1):73-85. PubMed ID: 9147604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of weighted kappa coefficients of multiple binary diagnostic tests done on the same subjects.
    Roldán Nofuentes JA; Luna del Castillo JD
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(20):2149-65. PubMed ID: 20809538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A sequential design to estimate sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic or screening test.
    Wruck LM; Yiannoutsos CT; Hughes MD
    Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(20):3458-73. PubMed ID: 16374904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests.
    Alonzo TA
    Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):403-17. PubMed ID: 15543634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Bayesian sample size determination for prevalence and diagnostic test studies in the absence of a gold standard test.
    Dendukuri N; Rahme E; Bélisle P; Joseph L
    Biometrics; 2004 Jun; 60(2):388-97. PubMed ID: 15180664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of predictive values of two diagnostic tests from the same sample of subjects using weighted least squares.
    Wang W; Davis CS; Soong SJ
    Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(13):2215-29. PubMed ID: 16220470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests.
    Macaskill P; Walter SD; Irwig L; Franco EL
    Stat Med; 2002 Sep; 21(17):2527-46. PubMed ID: 12205697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance.
    Pepe MS; Janes H
    Biostatistics; 2007 Apr; 8(2):474-84. PubMed ID: 17085745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Nonparametric estimation of ROC curves in the absence of a gold standard.
    Zhou XH; Castelluccio P; Zhou C
    Biometrics; 2005 Jun; 61(2):600-9. PubMed ID: 16011710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Some issues in resolution of diagnostic tests using an imperfect gold standard.
    Hawkins DM; Garrett JA; Stephenson B
    Stat Med; 2001 Jul; 20(13):1987-2001. PubMed ID: 11427955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Robust combination of multiple diagnostic tests for classifying censored event times.
    Cai T; Cheng S
    Biostatistics; 2008 Apr; 9(2):216-33. PubMed ID: 18056687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Semiparametric ROC surfaces for continuous diagnostic tests based on two test measurements.
    Wan S; Zhang B
    Stat Med; 2009 Aug; 28(18):2370-83. PubMed ID: 19499550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A novel design for estimating relative accuracy of screening tests when complete disease verification is not feasible.
    Alonzo TA; Kittelson JM
    Biometrics; 2006 Jun; 62(2):605-12. PubMed ID: 16918926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Incorporating the sampling variation of the disease prevalence when calculating the sample size in a study to determine the diagnostic accuracy of a test.
    Yi Q; Panzarella T; Corey P
    Control Clin Trials; 2004 Aug; 25(4):417-27. PubMed ID: 15296816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Bayesian estimation of intervention effect with pre- and post-misclassified binomial data.
    Stamey JD; Seaman JW; Young DM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(1):93-108. PubMed ID: 17219757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Re: Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance.
    Formann AK; Böhning D
    Biostatistics; 2008 Oct; 9(4):777-8. PubMed ID: 18718923
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present.
    Kosinski AS; Barnhart HX
    Stat Med; 2003 Sep; 22(17):2711-21. PubMed ID: 12939781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An ROC-type measure of diagnostic accuracy when the gold standard is continuous-scale.
    Obuchowski NA
    Stat Med; 2006 Feb; 25(3):481-93. PubMed ID: 16287217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.