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 *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25629564)

  • 21. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials.
    Ishizuka N; Ohashi Y
    Stat Med; 2001 Sep 15-30; 20(17-18):2661-81. PubMed ID: 11523075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A Bayesian adaptive design for estimating the maximum tolerated dose curve using drug combinations in cancer phase I clinical trials.
    Tighiouart M; Li Q; Rogatko A
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):280-290. PubMed ID: 27060889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. TITE-BOIN-ET: Time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes.
    Takeda K; Morita S; Taguri M
    Pharm Stat; 2020 May; 19(3):335-349. PubMed ID: 31829517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Escalation with overdose control using all toxicities and time to event toxicity data in cancer Phase I clinical trials.
    Chen Z; Cui Y; Owonikoko TK; Wang Z; Li Z; Luo R; Kutner M; Khuri FR; Kowalski J
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2014 Mar; 37(2):322-32. PubMed ID: 24530487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Keyboard: A Novel Bayesian Toxicity Probability Interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials.
    Yan F; Mandrekar SJ; Yuan Y
    Clin Cancer Res; 2017 Aug; 23(15):3994-4003. PubMed ID: 28546227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Some notable properties of the standard oncology Phase I design.
    Hather GJ; Mackey H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009; 19(3):543-55. PubMed ID: 19384695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. On the relative conservativeness of Bayesian logistic regression method in oncology dose-finding studies.
    Yang CH; Cheng G; Lin R
    Pharm Stat; 2024; 23(4):585-594. PubMed ID: 38317370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Dose escalation with overdose control using a quasi-continuous toxicity score in cancer Phase I clinical trials.
    Chen Z; Tighiouart M; Kowalski J
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Sep; 33(5):949-58. PubMed ID: 22561391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Small-sample behavior of novel phase I cancer trial designs.
    Oron AP; Hoff PD
    Clin Trials; 2013 Feb; 10(1):63-80. PubMed ID: 23345304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Critical aspects of the Bayesian approach to phase I cancer trials.
    Neuenschwander B; Branson M; Gsponer T
    Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(13):2420-39. PubMed ID: 18344187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A novel framework of Bayesian optimal interval design for phase I trials with late-onset toxicities.
    Zhou H; Chen C; Sun L; Zeng Z
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Jun; 105():106404. PubMed ID: 33862287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A two-stage dose selection strategy in phase I trials with wide dose ranges.
    Wang O; Faries DE
    J Biopharm Stat; 2000 Aug; 10(3):319-33. PubMed ID: 10959914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Statistical controversies in clinical research: building the bridge to phase II-efficacy estimation in dose-expansion cohorts.
    Boonstra PS; Braun TM; Taylor JMG; Kidwell KM; Bellile EL; Daignault S; Zhao L; Griffith KA; Lawrence TS; Kalemkerian GP; Schipper MJ
    Ann Oncol; 2017 Jul; 28(7):1427-1435. PubMed ID: 28200082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A Bayesian dose-finding design incorporating toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.
    Yin J; Qin R; Ezzalfani M; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar SJ
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):67-80. PubMed ID: 27633877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Toxicity-dependent feasibility bounds for the escalation with overdose control approach in phase I cancer trials.
    Wheeler GM; Sweeting MJ; Mander AP
    Stat Med; 2017 Jul; 36(16):2499-2513. PubMed ID: 28295513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Systematic comparison of the statistical operating characteristics of various Phase I oncology designs.
    Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Chang M; Doros G; Massaro J; LaValley M
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2017 Mar; 5():34-48. PubMed ID: 29740620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluating the performance of copula models in phase I-II clinical trials under model misspecification.
    Cunanan K; Koopmeiners JS
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Apr; 14():51. PubMed ID: 24731155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A hybrid Bayesian adaptive design for dose response trials.
    Chang M; Chow SC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(4):677-91. PubMed ID: 16022172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Bridging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials in different ethnic populations.
    Liu S; Pan H; Xia J; Huang Q; Yuan Y
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(10):1681-94. PubMed ID: 25626429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.