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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22385024)

  • 1. Monotonic Bayesian semiparametric benchmark dose analysis.
    Wheeler M; Bailer AJ
    Risk Anal; 2012 Jul; 32(7):1207-18. PubMed ID: 22385024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Model averaging using fractional polynomials to estimate a safe level of exposure.
    Faes C; Aerts M; Geys H; Molenberghs G
    Risk Anal; 2007 Feb; 27(1):111-23. PubMed ID: 17362404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Properties of model-averaged BMDLs: a study of model averaging in dichotomous response risk estimation.
    Wheeler MW; Bailer AJ
    Risk Anal; 2007 Jun; 27(3):659-70. PubMed ID: 17640214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Model uncertainty and risk estimation for experimental studies of quantal responses.
    Bailer AJ; Noble RB; Wheeler MW
    Risk Anal; 2005 Apr; 25(2):291-9. PubMed ID: 15876205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Nonparametric Bayesian methods for benchmark dose estimation.
    Guha N; Roy A; Kopylev L; Fox J; Spassova M; White P
    Risk Anal; 2013 Sep; 33(9):1608-19. PubMed ID: 23339666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Bayesian approach to the analysis of quantal bioassay studies using nonparametric mixture models.
    Fronczyk K; Kottas A
    Biometrics; 2014 Mar; 70(1):95-102. PubMed ID: 24354490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A statistical evaluation of toxicity study designs for the estimation of the benchmark dose in continuous endpoints.
    Slob W; Moerbeek M; Rauniomaa E; Piersma AH
    Toxicol Sci; 2005 Mar; 84(1):167-85. PubMed ID: 15483190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Revised assessment of cancer risk to dichloromethane: part I Bayesian PBPK and dose-response modeling in mice.
    Marino DJ; Clewell HJ; Gentry PR; Covington TR; Hack CE; David RM; Morgott DA
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Jun; 45(1):44-54. PubMed ID: 16442684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the maximum tolerated dose.
    Gaylor DW; Swirsky Gold L
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):222-5. PubMed ID: 10049793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimation of a benchmark dose in the presence or absence of hormesis using posterior averaging.
    Kim SB; Bartell SM; Gillen DL
    Risk Anal; 2015 Mar; 35(3):396-408. PubMed ID: 25384940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bootstrap estimation of benchmark doses and confidence limits with clustered quantal data.
    Zhu Y; Wang T; Jelsovsky JZ
    Risk Anal; 2007 Apr; 27(2):447-65. PubMed ID: 17511711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Towards quantitative uncertainty assessment for cancer risks: central estimates and probability distributions of risk in dose-response modeling.
    Kopylev L; Chen C; White P
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Dec; 49(3):203-7. PubMed ID: 17905499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data.
    Shao K; Gift JS
    Risk Anal; 2014 Jan; 34(1):101-20. PubMed ID: 23758102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Bayesian model-averaged benchmark dose analysis via reparameterized quantal-response models.
    Fang Q; Piegorsch WW; Simmons SJ; Li X; Chen C; Wang Y
    Biometrics; 2015 Dec; 71(4):1168-75. PubMed ID: 26102570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Potential uncertainty reduction in model-averaged benchmark dose estimates informed by an additional dose study.
    Shao K; Small MJ
    Risk Anal; 2011 Oct; 31(10):1561-75. PubMed ID: 21388425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Incorporating model uncertainties along with data uncertainties in microbial risk assessment.
    Kang SH; Kodell RL; Chen JJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2000 Aug; 32(1):68-72. PubMed ID: 11029270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Development of an occupational exposure limit for n-propylbromide using benchmark dose methods.
    Stelljes ME; Wood RR
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2004 Oct; 40(2):136-50. PubMed ID: 15450717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of three methods for integrating historical information for Bayesian model averaged benchmark dose estimation.
    Shao K
    Environ Toxicol Pharmacol; 2012 Sep; 34(2):288-296. PubMed ID: 22647377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.