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 *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22893483)

  • 1. Interplay of priors and skeletons in two-stage continual reassessment method.
    Iasonos A; O'Quigley J
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(30):4321-36. PubMed ID: 22893483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies.
    James GD; Symeonides S; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
    BMC Cancer; 2021 Jan; 21(1):7. PubMed ID: 33402104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Continual reassessment method for dose escalation clinical trials in oncology: a comparison of prior skeleton approaches using AZD3514 data.
    James GD; Symeonides SN; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
    BMC Cancer; 2016 Aug; 16(1):703. PubMed ID: 27581751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Performance of two-stage continual reassessment method relative to an optimal benchmark.
    Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
    Clin Trials; 2013; 10(6):862-75. PubMed ID: 24085776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A novel model of the continual reassessment method in Phase I trial.
    Zhang W; Lei W; Zhu X
    Sci Rep; 2023 Mar; 13(1):5047. PubMed ID: 36977709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A default method to specify skeletons for Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials.
    Pan H; Yuan Y
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):266-279. PubMed ID: 26991076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method.
    Van Meter EM; Garrett-Mayer E; Bandyopadhyay D
    Clin Trials; 2012 Jun; 9(3):303-13. PubMed ID: 22547420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Borrowing historical information to improve phase I clinical trials using meta-analytic-predictive priors.
    Chen X; Zhang J; Jiang Q; Yan F
    J Biopharm Stat; 2022 Jan; 32(1):34-52. PubMed ID: 35594366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method.
    Horton BJ; Wages NA; Conaway MR
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 27435150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bayesian hybrid dose-finding design in phase I oncology clinical trials.
    Yuan Y; Yin G
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2098-108. PubMed ID: 21365672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Posterior maximization and averaging for Bayesian working model choice in the continual reassessment method.
    Daimon T; Zohar S; O'Quigley J
    Stat Med; 2011 Jun; 30(13):1563-73. PubMed ID: 21351288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A Bayesian evaluation of enrolling additional patients at the maximum tolerated dose in Phase I trials.
    Gönen M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2005 Apr; 26(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 15837436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials.
    Gasparini M; Eisele J
    Biometrics; 2000 Jun; 56(2):609-15. PubMed ID: 10877324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs in the continuous dose-response setting.
    Storer BE
    Stat Med; 2001 Aug; 20(16):2399-408. PubMed ID: 11512130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Curve-free and model-based continual reassessment method designs.
    O'Quigley J
    Biometrics; 2002 Mar; 58(1):245-9. PubMed ID: 11890323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of phase I dose-finding designs in clinical trials with monotonicity assumption violation.
    Abbas R; Rossoni C; Jaki T; Paoletti X; Mozgunov P
    Clin Trials; 2020 Oct; 17(5):522-534. PubMed ID: 32631095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.
    Wheeler GM; Mander AP; Bedding A; Brock K; Cornelius V; Grieve AP; Jaki T; Love SB; Odondi L; Weir CJ; Yap C; Bond SJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):18. PubMed ID: 30658575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimating the dose-toxicity curve in completed phase I studies.
    Iasonos A; Ostrovnaya I
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2117-29. PubMed ID: 21341302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Calibration of prior variance in the Bayesian continual reassessment method.
    Lee SM; Cheung YK
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2081-9. PubMed ID: 21413054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.