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 *

169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11782050)

  • 1. An extension of the continual reassessment method using decision theory.
    Leung DH; Wang YG
    Stat Med; 2002 Jan; 21(1):51-63. PubMed ID: 11782050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of phase I dose-finding designs in clinical trials with monotonicity assumption violation.
    Abbas R; Rossoni C; Jaki T; Paoletti X; Mozgunov P
    Clin Trials; 2020 Oct; 17(5):522-534. PubMed ID: 32631095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Shift models for dose-finding in partially ordered groups.
    Horton BJ; Wages NA; Conaway MR
    Clin Trials; 2019 Feb; 16(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 30309262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of irrational dose assignment definitions using the continual reassessment method.
    Wages NA; Bagley E
    Clin Trials; 2019 Dec; 16(6):665-672. PubMed ID: 31547691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies.
    James GD; Symeonides S; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
    BMC Cancer; 2021 Jan; 21(1):7. PubMed ID: 33402104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Modeling adverse event counts in phase I clinical trials of a cytotoxic agent.
    Muenz DG; Braun TM; Taylor JM
    Clin Trials; 2018 Aug; 15(4):386-397. PubMed ID: 29779418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.
    Wheeler GM; Mander AP; Bedding A; Brock K; Cornelius V; Grieve AP; Jaki T; Love SB; Odondi L; Weir CJ; Yap C; Bond SJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):18. PubMed ID: 30658575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method.
    Horton BJ; Wages NA; Conaway MR
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 27435150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method.
    Van Meter EM; Garrett-Mayer E; Bandyopadhyay D
    Clin Trials; 2012 Jun; 9(3):303-13. PubMed ID: 22547420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies.
    Zohar S; Chevret S
    Stat Med; 2001 Oct; 20(19):2827-43. PubMed ID: 11568943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimal phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology--a simulation study.
    Gerke O; Siedentop H
    Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5329-44. PubMed ID: 17849502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Performance of two-stage continual reassessment method relative to an optimal benchmark.
    Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
    Clin Trials; 2013; 10(6):862-75. PubMed ID: 24085776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials.
    Zhou H; Murray TA; Pan H; Yuan Y
    Stat Med; 2018 Jun; 37(14):2208-2222. PubMed ID: 29682777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials.
    Ishizuka N; Ohashi Y
    Stat Med; 2001 Sep 15-30; 20(17-18):2661-81. PubMed ID: 11523075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs.
    Iasonos A; Zohar S; O'Quigley J
    Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):370-9. PubMed ID: 21835856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Continual reassessment method for dose escalation clinical trials in oncology: a comparison of prior skeleton approaches using AZD3514 data.
    James GD; Symeonides SN; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
    BMC Cancer; 2016 Aug; 16(1):703. PubMed ID: 27581751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sensitivity of dose-finding studies to observation errors.
    Zohar S; O'Quigley J
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 Nov; 30(6):523-30. PubMed ID: 19580886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Seamless Phase I/II Adaptive Design for Oncology Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents.
    Wages NA; Tait C
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(5):903-20. PubMed ID: 24904956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sequential or combined designs for Phase I/II clinical trials? A simulation study.
    Rossoni C; Bardet A; Geoerger B; Paoletti X
    Clin Trials; 2019 Dec; 16(6):635-644. PubMed ID: 31538815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase I clinical trials.
    Boonstra PS; Shen J; Taylor JM; Braun TM; Griffith KA; Daignault S; Kalemkerian GP; Lawrence TS; Schipper MJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Mar; 107(3):. PubMed ID: 25710960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.