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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24797319)

  • 1. Comments on 'A dose-finding approach based on shrunken predictive probability for combinations of two agents in phase I trials' by Akihiro Hirakawa, Chikuma Hamada, and Shigeyuki Matsui.
    Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
    Stat Med; 2014 May; 33(12):2156-8. PubMed ID: 24797319
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A dose-finding approach based on shrunken predictive probability for combinations of two agents in phase I trials.
    Hirakawa A; Hamada C; Matsui S
    Stat Med; 2013 Nov; 32(26):4515-25. PubMed ID: 23650098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Response to letter to the editor by Dr Wages et al.
    Hirakawa A; Matsui S
    Stat Med; 2014 May; 33(12):2159-60. PubMed ID: 24797320
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A Bayesian interval dose-finding design addressingOckham's razor: mTPI-2.
    Guo W; Wang SJ; Yang S; Lynn H; Ji Y
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2017 Jul; 58():23-33. PubMed ID: 28458054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Practical model-based dose-finding in phase I clinical trials: methods based on toxicity.
    Thall PF; Lee SJ
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2003; 13(3):251-61. PubMed ID: 12801254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Response to comments on 'competing designs for drug combination in phase I dose-finding clinical trials' by G. Yin, R. Lin and N. Wages.
    Riviere MK; Dubois F; Zohar S
    Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 25492617
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comments on 'competing designs for drug combination in phase I dose-finding clinical trials' by M-K. Riviere, F. Dubois, S. Zohar.
    Wages NA
    Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 25492616
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comments on 'competing designs for drug combination in phase I dose-finding clinical trials' by M-K. Riviere, F. Dubois, and S. Zohar.
    Yin G; Lin R
    Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 25492615
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Flexible Bayesian methods for cancer phase I clinical trials. Dose escalation with overdose control.
    Tighiouart M; Rogatko A; Babb JS
    Stat Med; 2005 Jul; 24(14):2183-96. PubMed ID: 15909291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparative study of adaptive dose-finding designs for phase I oncology trials of combination therapies.
    Hirakawa A; Wages NA; Sato H; Matsui S
    Stat Med; 2015 Oct; 34(24):3194-213. PubMed ID: 25974405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dose finding with continuous outcome in phase I oncology trials.
    Wang Y; Ivanova A
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(2):102-7. PubMed ID: 25408518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space.
    Wang K; Ivanova A
    Biometrics; 2005 Mar; 61(1):217-22. PubMed ID: 15737096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An optimization algorithm for designing phase I cancer clinical trials.
    Jiang H; Liu Y; Su Z
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Mar; 29(2):102-8. PubMed ID: 17681867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Phase I trial design for drug combinations with Bayesian model averaging.
    Jin IH; Huo L; Yin G; Yuan Y
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(2):108-19. PubMed ID: 25641851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Continuous toxicity monitoring in phase II trials in oncology.
    Ivanova A; Qaqish BF; Schell MJ
    Biometrics; 2005 Jun; 61(2):540-5. PubMed ID: 16011702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A Bayesian dose finding design for dual endpoint phase I trials.
    Loke YC; Tan SB; Cai Y; Machin D
    Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(1):3-22. PubMed ID: 16013039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.