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 *

360 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26991076)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a bayesian model selection approach.
    Pan H; Zhu C; Zhang F; Yuan Y; Zhang S; Zhang W; Li C; Wang L; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e98147. PubMed ID: 24875783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method for bivariate binary efficacy and toxicity outcomes in phase I oncology trials.
    Asakawa T; Hirakawa A; Hamada C
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(2):310-25. PubMed ID: 24605971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Identifying a maximum tolerated contour in two-dimensional dose finding.
    Wages NA
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):242-253. PubMed ID: 26910586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Adaptive prior variance calibration in the Bayesian continual reassessment method.
    Zhang J; Braun TM; Taylor JM
    Stat Med; 2013 Jun; 32(13):2221-34. PubMed ID: 22987660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials.
    Zang Y; Lee JJ
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):27-42. PubMed ID: 27538818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Designs for phase I trials in ordered groups.
    Conaway MR; Wages NA
    Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):254-265. PubMed ID: 27624880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. CRM2DIM: A SAS macro for implementing the dual-agent Bayesian continual reassessment method.
    Bayar MA; Ivanova A; Le Teuff G
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2019 Jul; 176():211-223. PubMed ID: 31200907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A two-stage algorithm for designing phase I cancer clinical trials for two new molecular entities.
    Su Z
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Jan; 31(1):105-7. PubMed ID: 19879974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.