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 *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16078383)

  • 1. Optimal design for dose response using beta distributed responses.
    Wu Y; Fedorov VV; Propert KJ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(5):753-71. PubMed ID: 16078383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Adaptive designs for dose-finding studies based on sigmoid Emax model.
    Dragalin V; Hsuan F; Padmanabhan SK
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(6):1051-70. PubMed ID: 18027216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Design and analysis of trials with quality of life as an outcome: a practical guide.
    Walters SJ; Campbell MJ; Lall R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2001; 11(3):155-76. PubMed ID: 11725929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optimal designs for the individual and joint exposure general logistic regression models.
    Antonello JM; Raghavarao D
    J Biopharm Stat; 2000 Aug; 10(3):351-67. PubMed ID: 10959916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dose finding designs for continuous responses and binary utility.
    Fedorov VV; Wu Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(6):1085-96. PubMed ID: 18027218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A hybrid Bayesian adaptive design for dose response trials.
    Chang M; Chow SC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(4):677-91. PubMed ID: 16022172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimal designs for estimating the interesting part of a dose-effect curve.
    Miller F; Guilbaud O; Dette H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(6):1097-115. PubMed ID: 18027219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Optimal crossover designs for logistic regression models in pharmacodynamics.
    Waterhouse TH; Eccleston JA; Duffull SB
    J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(6):881-94. PubMed ID: 17146986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Methods for estimating the parameters of a linear model for ordered categorical data.
    Lipsitz SR
    Biometrics; 1992 Mar; 48(1):271-81. PubMed ID: 1581487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of robust criteria for D-optimal designs.
    Foo LK; McGree J; Eccleston J; Duffull S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(6):1193-205. PubMed ID: 23075017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Hypothesis testing and Bayesian estimation using a sigmoid Emax model applied to sparse dose-response designs.
    Thomas N
    J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(5):657-77. PubMed ID: 17037264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Semiparametric models for missing covariate and response data in regression models.
    Chen Q; Ibrahim JG
    Biometrics; 2006 Mar; 62(1):177-84. PubMed ID: 16542244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Inferences for joint modelling of repeated ordinal scores and time to event data.
    Chakraborty A; Das K
    Comput Math Methods Med; 2010 Sep; 11(3):281-95. PubMed ID: 20721765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables.
    Smithson M; Verkuilen J
    Psychol Methods; 2006 Mar; 11(1):54-71. PubMed ID: 16594767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Implementing type I & type II error spending for two-sided group sequential designs.
    Rudser KD; Emerson SS
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 May; 29(3):351-8. PubMed ID: 17933592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Tests of significance using regression models for ordered categorical data.
    Snapinn SM; Small RD
    Biometrics; 1986 Sep; 42(3):583-92. PubMed ID: 3567291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adaptive Dc-optimal designs for dose finding based on a continuous efficacy endpoint.
    Padmanabhan SK; Dragalin V
    Biom J; 2010 Dec; 52(6):836-52. PubMed ID: 20891026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of model choices for the Continual Reassessment Method in phase I cancer trials.
    Paoletti X; Kramar A
    Stat Med; 2009 Oct; 28(24):3012-28. PubMed ID: 19672839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Minimization method for balancing continuous prognostic variables between treatment and control groups using Kullback-Leibler divergence.
    Endo A; Nagatani F; Hamada C; Yoshimura I
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2006 Oct; 27(5):420-31. PubMed ID: 16807130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sample size calculation for the Power Model for dose proportionality studies.
    Sethuraman VS; Leonov S; Squassante L; Mitchell TR; Hale MD
    Pharm Stat; 2007; 6(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 17323313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.