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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19097251)

  • 1. Conditional estimation of sensitivity and specificity from a phase 2 biomarker study allowing early termination for futility.
    Pepe MS; Feng Z; Longton G; Koopmeiners J
    Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(5):762-79. PubMed ID: 19097251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Conditional estimation after a two-stage diagnostic biomarker study that allows early termination for futility.
    Koopmeiners JS; Feng Z; Pepe MS
    Stat Med; 2012 Feb; 31(5):420-35. PubMed ID: 22238117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of conditional bias-adjusted estimators for interim analysis in clinical trials with survival data.
    Shimura M; Gosho M; Hirakawa A
    Stat Med; 2017 Jun; 36(13):2067-2080. PubMed ID: 28211076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. What inference for two-stage phase II trials?
    Porcher R; Desseaux K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 Aug; 12():117. PubMed ID: 22867439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Operating characteristics of sample size re-estimation with futility stopping based on conditional power.
    Lachin JM
    Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(19):3348-65. PubMed ID: 16345019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be biased when reporting the results of the second test in a screening trial conducted in series.
    Ringham BM; Alonzo TA; Grunwald GK; Glueck DH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Jan; 10():3. PubMed ID: 20064254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Adjustment for measurement error in evaluating diagnostic biomarkers by using an internal reliability sample.
    White MT; Xie SX
    Stat Med; 2013 Nov; 32(27):4709-25. PubMed ID: 23765915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improved nonparametric estimation of the optimal diagnostic cut-off point associated with the Youden index under different sampling schemes.
    Yin J; Samawi H; Linder D
    Biom J; 2016 Jul; 58(4):915-34. PubMed ID: 26756282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Unbiased estimation of biomarker panel performance when combining training and testing data in a group sequential design.
    Tayob N; Do KA; Feng Z
    Biometrics; 2016 Sep; 72(3):888-96. PubMed ID: 26845527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Two-stage biomarker panel study and estimation allowing early termination for futility.
    Zhao S; Zheng Y; Prentice RL; Feng Z
    Biostatistics; 2015 Oct; 16(4):799-812. PubMed ID: 25964662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Point and interval estimation of accuracies of a binary medical diagnostic test following group sequential testing.
    Shu Y; Liu A; Li Z
    Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci; 2008 Jul; 366(1874):2335-45. PubMed ID: 18407894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sample size recalculation in sequential diagnostic trials.
    Tang LL; Liu A
    Biostatistics; 2010 Jan; 11(1):151-63. PubMed ID: 19822693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bias in retrospective analyses of biomarker effect using data from an outcome-adaptive randomized trial.
    Ji L; McShane LM; Krailo M; Sposto R
    Clin Trials; 2019 Dec; 16(6):599-609. PubMed ID: 31581815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Doubly robust inference for targeted minimum loss-based estimation in randomized trials with missing outcome data.
    Díaz I; van der Laan MJ
    Stat Med; 2017 Oct; 36(24):3807-3819. PubMed ID: 28744883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimation of treatment effects in all-comers randomized clinical trials with a predictive marker.
    Choai Y; Matsui S
    Biometrics; 2015 Mar; 71(1):25-32. PubMed ID: 25303178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Conditional bias adjusted estimator of treatment effect in 2-in-1 adaptive design.
    Bai X; Deng Q; Li W
    J Biopharm Stat; 2024 Jun; ():1-20. PubMed ID: 38841980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An evaluation of inferential procedures for adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size.
    Levin GP; Emerson SC; Emerson SS
    Biometrics; 2014 Sep; 70(3):556-67. PubMed ID: 24766094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Conditional estimation in two-stage adaptive designs.
    Broberg P; Miller F
    Biometrics; 2017 Sep; 73(3):895-904. PubMed ID: 28099993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A wild bootstrap approach for the selection of biomarkers in early diagnostic trials.
    Zapf A; Brunner E; Konietschke F
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 May; 15():43. PubMed ID: 25925052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessing observer agreement in studies involving replicated binary observations.
    Haber M; Gao J; Barnhart HX
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(4):757-66. PubMed ID: 17613652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.