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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18386766)

  • 1. Exploratory assessment of dose proportionality: review of current approaches and proposal for a practical criterion.
    Hummel J; McKendrick S; Brindley C; French R
    Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(1):38-49. PubMed ID: 18386766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Tests for individual and population bioequivalence based on generalized p-values.
    McNally RJ; Iyer H; Mathew T
    Stat Med; 2003 Jan; 22(1):31-53. PubMed ID: 12486750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bayesian decision procedures for dose-escalation based on evidence of undesirable events and therapeutic benefit.
    Whitehead J; Zhou Y; Stevens J; Blakey G; Price J; Leadbetter J
    Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(1):37-53. PubMed ID: 16342336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On the assessment of dose proportionality: a comparison of two slope approaches.
    Cheng B; Chow SC; Su WL
    J Biopharm Stat; 2006 May; 16(3):385-92. PubMed ID: 16724492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. How to deal with multiple treatment or dose groups in randomized clinical trials?
    Hothorn LA
    Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2007 Apr; 21(2):137-54. PubMed ID: 17391286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Retrospective analysis of sequential dose-finding designs.
    O'Quigley J
    Biometrics; 2005 Sep; 61(3):749-56. PubMed ID: 16135026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sample size determination: extended tables for the multiplicative model and bioequivalence ranges of 0.9 to 1.11 and 0.7 to 1.43.
    Diletti E; Hauschke D; Steinijans VW
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992; 30 Suppl 1():S59-62. PubMed ID: 1601533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A multivariate test for population bioequivalence.
    Chervoneva I; Hyslop T; Hauck WW
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(6):1208-23. PubMed ID: 16810712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Designs for phase I clinical trials with multiple courses of subjects at different doses.
    Fan SK; Wang YG
    Biometrics; 2007 Sep; 63(3):856-64. PubMed ID: 17403103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of cancer slope factors using different statistical approaches.
    Subramaniam RP; White P; Cogliano VJ
    Risk Anal; 2006 Jun; 26(3):825-30. PubMed ID: 16834636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Practical experience of using human microdosing with AMS analysis to obtain early human drug metabolism and PK data.
    Garner RC
    Bioanalysis; 2010 Mar; 2(3):429-40. PubMed ID: 21083253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparing experimental designs for benchmark dose calculations for continuous endpoints.
    Kuljus K; von Rosen D; Sand S; Victorin K
    Risk Anal; 2006 Aug; 26(4):1031-43. PubMed ID: 16948695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Proof of concept and dose estimation with binary responses under model uncertainty.
    Klingenberg B
    Stat Med; 2009 Jan; 28(2):274-92. PubMed ID: 19012269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the reference scaled bioequivalence semi-replicate method with other approaches: focus on human exposure to drugs.
    Karalis V; Symillides M; Macheras P
    Eur J Pharm Sci; 2009 Aug; 38(1):55-63. PubMed ID: 19524039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Confidence interval criteria for assessment of dose proportionality.
    Smith BP; Vandenhende FR; DeSante KA; Farid NA; Welch PA; Callaghan JT; Forgue ST
    Pharm Res; 2000 Oct; 17(10):1278-83. PubMed ID: 11145235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Design issues in dose-finding Phase I trials for combinations of two agents.
    Fan SK; Venook AP; Lu Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009; 19(3):509-23. PubMed ID: 19384692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dose selection in seamless phase II/III clinical trials based on efficacy and safety.
    Kimani PK; Stallard N; Hutton JL
    Stat Med; 2009 Mar; 28(6):917-36. PubMed ID: 19152231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Methodological and statistical problems in uvulopalatopharyngoplasty research: a follow-up study.
    Megwalu UC; Piccirillo JF
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2008 Aug; 134(8):805-9. PubMed ID: 18711052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.