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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14507420)

  • 1. Imputation of a true endpoint from a surrogate: application to a cluster randomized controlled trial with partial information on the true endpoint.
    Nixon RM; Duffy SW; Fender GR
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Sep; 3():17. PubMed ID: 14507420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint.
    Baker SG
    Biostatistics; 2006 Jan; 7(1):58-70. PubMed ID: 15972889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials.
    Baker SG
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Oct; 17(5):505-14. PubMed ID: 18285436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does the Prentice criterion validate surrogate endpoints?
    Berger VW
    Stat Med; 2004 May; 23(10):1571-8. PubMed ID: 15122737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Does the decision in a validation process of a surrogate endpoint change with level of significance of treatment effect? A proposal on validation of surrogate endpoints.
    Sertdemir Y; Burgut R
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 Jan; 30(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 18809512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Information-theory based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous true and binary surrogate endpoints.
    Pryseley A; Tilahun A; Alonso A; Molenberghs G
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(6):587-97. PubMed ID: 18042568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Imputation strategies for missing continuous outcomes in cluster randomized trials.
    Taljaard M; Donner A; Klar N
    Biom J; 2008 Jun; 50(3):329-45. PubMed ID: 18537126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Predicting event times in clinical trials when randomization is masked and blocked.
    Donovan JM; Elliott MR; Heitjan DF
    Clin Trials; 2007; 4(5):481-90. PubMed ID: 17942464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing surrogacy from the joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal data and survival: application to clinical trial data on chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.
    Deslandes E; Chevret S
    Stat Med; 2007 Dec; 26(30):5411-21. PubMed ID: 18058850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Is prostate-specific antigen a valid surrogate end point for survival in hormonally treated patients with metastatic prostate cancer? Joint research of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, the Limburgs Universitair Centrum, and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.
    Collette L; Burzykowski T; Carroll KJ; Newling D; Morris T; Schröder FH; ; ;
    J Clin Oncol; 2005 Sep; 23(25):6139-48. PubMed ID: 16135480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Alternative methods to evaluate trial level surrogacy.
    Abrahantes JC; Shkedy Z; Molenberghs G
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(3):194-208. PubMed ID: 18559408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Surrogate endpoints in randomized cardiovascular clinical trials.
    Domanski M; Pocock S; Bernaud C; Borer J; Geller N; Revkin J; Zannad F
    Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2011 Aug; 25(4):411-3. PubMed ID: 20698890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analyses of cumulative incidence functions via non-parametric multiple imputation.
    Ruan PK; Gray RJ
    Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(27):5709-24. PubMed ID: 18712779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Information theory-based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with binary endpoints, using SAS.
    Tilahun A; Pryseley A; Alonso A; Molenberghs G
    J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(2):326-41. PubMed ID: 18327724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Bayesian methods for analysis of binary outcome data in cluster randomized trials on the absolute risk scale.
    Thompson SG; Warn DE; Turner RM
    Stat Med; 2004 Feb; 23(3):389-410. PubMed ID: 14748035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of imputation and modelling methods in the analysis of a physical activity trial with missing outcomes.
    Wood AM; White IR; Hillsdon M; Carpenter J
    Int J Epidemiol; 2005 Feb; 34(1):89-99. PubMed ID: 15333619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A new and rapid scoring system to assess the scientific evidence from clinical trials.
    Silber S
    J Interv Cardiol; 2006 Dec; 19(6):485-92. PubMed ID: 17107362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of statistical methods for analysis of clustered binary observations.
    Heo M; Leon AC
    Stat Med; 2005 Mar; 24(6):911-23. PubMed ID: 15558576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review.
    Weir CJ; Walley RJ
    Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(2):183-203. PubMed ID: 16252272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression.
    Martens EP; Pestman WR; de Boer A; Belitser SV; Klungel OH
    Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1142-7. PubMed ID: 18453634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.