2016
DOI: 10.1214/16-aoas981
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A lag functional linear model for prediction of magnetization transfer ratio in multiple sclerosis lesions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, newer research sequences with putative higher sensitivity to changes in myelin, such as MTR, could also be used in this study design and their added value could be evaluated. 2325…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, newer research sequences with putative higher sensitivity to changes in myelin, such as MTR, could also be used in this study design and their added value could be evaluated. 2325…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has included work in variable selection , interactions , and nonlinear effects . The functional model can also be adapted for dynamic risk assessment using a historical functional linear model . Empirical work has shown that different formulations of the functional model perform better in different settings .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One possible approach to account for the past functional covariates is to consider a regression model like the historical functional linear model (see Malfait and Ramsay (), Pomann et al . (), Scheipl et al . () and Kim et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…E[Y ij |X i1 .·/, : : : , X in i .·/] = E[Y ij |X ij .·/]: This assumption makes sense for our application, but it may not be reasonable for other situations. One possible approach to account for the past functional covariates is to consider a regression model like the historical functional linear model (see Malfait and Ramsay (2003), Pomann et al (2016), Scheipl et al (2015) and Kim et al (2011)).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%