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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23305975)

  • 1. Statistical methods and tool for cut point analysis in immunogenicity assays.
    Zhang L; Zhang JJ; Kubiak RJ; Yang H
    J Immunol Methods; 2013 Mar; 389(1-2):79-87. PubMed ID: 23305975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Non-normal random effects models for immunogenicity assay cut point determination.
    Zhang J; Yu B; Zhang L; Roskos L; Richman L; Yang H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(2):295-306. PubMed ID: 25356500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Statistical considerations for calculation of immunogenicity screening assay cut points.
    Hoffman D; Berger M
    J Immunol Methods; 2011 Oct; 373(1-2):200-8. PubMed ID: 21906599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sample size consideration for immunoassay screening cut-point determination.
    Zhang J; Zhang L; Yang H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(3):535-45. PubMed ID: 24697778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Statistical evaluation of several methods for cut-point determination of immunogenicity screening assay.
    Shen M; Dong X; Tsong Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(2):269-79. PubMed ID: 25356783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A new method for identification of outliers in immunogenicity assay cut point data.
    Zhang J; Arends RH; Kubiak RJ; Roskos LK; Liang M; Lee N; Chen CC; Yang H
    J Immunol Methods; 2020; 484-485():112817. PubMed ID: 32615125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Enhancing efficiency and quality of statistical estimation of immunogenicity assay cut points through standardization and automation.
    Su C; Zhou L; Hu Z; Weng W; Subramani J; Tadkod V; Hamilton K; Bautista A; Wu Y; Chirmule N; Zhong ZD
    J Immunol Methods; 2015 Oct; 425():88-96. PubMed ID: 26130368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Statistical assessment of biosimilar products.
    Chow SC; Liu JP
    J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Jan; 20(1):10-30. PubMed ID: 20077246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A novel gamma-fitting statistical method for anti-drug antibody assays to establish assay cut points for data with non-normal distribution.
    Schlain B; Amaravadi L; Donley J; Wickramasekera A; Bennett D; Subramanyam M
    J Immunol Methods; 2010 Jan; 352(1-2):161-8. PubMed ID: 19891969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Recommendations for Systematic Statistical Computation of Immunogenicity Cut Points.
    Devanarayan V; Smith WC; Brunelle RL; Seger ME; Krug K; Bowsher RR
    AAPS J; 2017 Sep; 19(5):1487-1498. PubMed ID: 28733862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Criteria to Reevaluate Anti-drug Antibody Assay Cut Point Suitability in the Target Population.
    Tan CY; Steeno GS; You Z; Gaitonde P; Cai CH; Kamerud J; Gorovits B; Baltrukonis DJ
    AAPS J; 2020 Jan; 22(2):19. PubMed ID: 31900604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Excessive outlier removal may result in cut points that are not suitable for immunogenicity assessments.
    Kubiak RJ; Zhang J; Ren P; Yang H; Roskos LK
    J Immunol Methods; 2018 Dec; 463():105-111. PubMed ID: 30312600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Classification accuracy and cut point selection.
    Liu X
    Stat Med; 2012 Oct; 31(23):2676-86. PubMed ID: 22307964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Elucidation of the statistical factors that influence anti-drug antibody cut point setting through a multi-laboratory study.
    Nishimura K; Shibata H; Aoyama M; Hosogi J; Kadotsuji K; Minoura K; Mori T; Nakamura T; Nishimiya K; Nomura T; Saito T; Soma M; Wakabayashi H; Sakamoto N; Niimi S; Katori N; Saito Y; Ishii-Watabe A
    Bioanalysis; 2019 Mar; 11(6):509-524. PubMed ID: 30945932
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A simple unified approach for estimating natural direct and indirect effects.
    Lange T; Vansteelandt S; Bekaert M
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Aug; 176(3):190-5. PubMed ID: 22781427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Statistical methods of screening cut point determination in immunogenicity studies.
    Shen M; Dai T
    Bioanalysis; 2021 Apr; 13(7):551-563. PubMed ID: 33755515
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Development of a multiplex assay for the detection of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in horses and its validation using Bayesian and conventional statistical methods.
    Wagner B; Freer H; Rollins A; Erb HN; Lu Z; Gröhn Y
    Vet Immunol Immunopathol; 2011 Dec; 144(3-4):374-81. PubMed ID: 21890217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Immunogenicity assay cut point determination using nonparametric tolerance limit.
    Zhang J; Li W; Roskos LK; Yang H
    J Immunol Methods; 2017 Mar; 442():29-34. PubMed ID: 28063769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Improving validation methods for molecular diagnostics: application of Bland-Altman, Deming and simple linear regression analyses in assay comparison and evaluation for next-generation sequencing.
    Misyura M; Sukhai MA; Kulasignam V; Zhang T; Kamel-Reid S; Stockley TL
    J Clin Pathol; 2018 Feb; 71(2):117-124. PubMed ID: 28747393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A formal comparison of different methods for establishing cut points to distinguish positive and negative samples in immunoassays.
    Jaki T; Lawo JP; Wolfsegger MJ; Singer J; Allacher P; Horling F
    J Pharm Biomed Anal; 2011 Jul; 55(5):1148-56. PubMed ID: 21561734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.