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.
2. Estimation of k for the poly-k test with application to animal carcinogenicity studies. Moon H; Ahn H; Kodell RL; Lee JJ Stat Med; 2003 Aug; 22(16):2619-36. PubMed ID: 12898548 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A measure of tumorigenic potency incorporating dose-response shape. Meier KL; Bailer AJ; Portier CJ Biometrics; 1993 Sep; 49(3):917-26. PubMed ID: 8241378 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Testing for trend with count data. Weller EA; Ryan LM Biometrics; 1998 Jun; 54(2):762-73. PubMed ID: 9629655 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Thresholds in carcinogenicity in ED01 study. Rozman KK Toxicol Sci; 2003 Sep; 75(1):224-5. PubMed ID: 12923303 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens? Gaylor DW Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Waddell's representation of the tumor incidence data of the ED01 study is strongly misleading. Lutz WK Toxicol Sci; 2003 Sep; 75(1):223; author reply 223-4. PubMed ID: 12923302 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. On the use of historical control data to estimate dose response trends in quantal bioassay. Prentice RL; Smythe RT; Krewski D; Mason M Biometrics; 1992 Jun; 48(2):459-78. PubMed ID: 1637972 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of animal carcinogenicity experiments with multiple tumor types. Lu Y; Malani HM Biometrics; 1995 Mar; 51(1):73-86. PubMed ID: 7766797 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Constant risk differences in the analysis of animal tumorigenicity data. Dinse GE Biometrics; 1991 Jun; 47(2):681-700. PubMed ID: 1912267 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Ratio estimates, the delta method, and quantal response tests for increased carcinogenicity. Bieler GS; Williams RL Biometrics; 1993 Sep; 49(3):793-801. PubMed ID: 8241374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The incorporation of historical control information in tests of proportions: simulation study of Tarone's procedure. Tamura RN; Young SS Biometrics; 1986 Jun; 42(2):343-9. PubMed ID: 3755626 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Statistical analysis of animal cancer chemoprevention experiments. Freedman LS; Midthune DN; Brown CC; Steele V; Kelloff GJ Biometrics; 1993 Mar; 49(1):259-68. PubMed ID: 8513108 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A note on multiple testing procedures in dose finding. Bauer P Biometrics; 1997 Sep; 53(3):1125-8. PubMed ID: 9333343 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Design of cancer assays for pharmaceutical agents. Ciminera JL; Heyse JF; Mantel N; Pitot PC J Natl Cancer Inst; 1984 Jun; 72(6):1212. PubMed ID: 6587143 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of stratified and adjusted trend tests for binomial proportions. Leuraud K; Benichou J Stat Med; 2006 Feb; 25(3):529-35. PubMed ID: 16025544 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Multiple comparisons between two groups on multiple Bernoulli outcomes while accounting for covariates. Troendle JF Stat Med; 2005 Dec; 24(23):3581-91. PubMed ID: 15977268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Exact analysis of dose response for multiple correlated binary outcomes. Han KE; Catalano PJ; Senchaudhuri P; Mehta C Biometrics; 2004 Mar; 60(1):216-24. PubMed ID: 15032792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]