391 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27435150)
1. 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]
2. The 3 + 3 design in dose-finding studies with small sample sizes: Pitfalls and possible remedies.
Chiuzan C; Dehbi HM
Clin Trials; 2024 Jun; 21(3):350-357. PubMed ID: 38618916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Accuracy, Safety, and Reliability of Novel Phase I Trial Designs.
Zhou H; Yuan Y; Nie L
Clin Cancer Res; 2018 Sep; 24(18):4357-4364. PubMed ID: 29661774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies.
Iasonos A; Wilton AS; Riedel ER; Seshan VE; Spriggs DR
Clin Trials; 2008; 5(5):465-77. PubMed ID: 18827039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials.
Ji Y; Wang SJ
J Clin Oncol; 2013 May; 31(14):1785-91. PubMed ID: 23569307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials.
Yuan Y; Hess KR; Hilsenbeck SG; Gilbert MR
Clin Cancer Res; 2016 Sep; 22(17):4291-301. PubMed ID: 27407096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials.
Zhou H; Murray TA; Pan H; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2018 Jun; 37(14):2208-2222. PubMed ID: 29682777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): a practical Phase I design.
Blanchard MS; Longmate JA
Contemp Clin Trials; 2011 Jan; 32(1):114-21. PubMed ID: 20923709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Modeling adverse event counts in phase I clinical trials of a cytotoxic agent.
Muenz DG; Braun TM; Taylor JM
Clin Trials; 2018 Aug; 15(4):386-397. PubMed ID: 29779418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A utility-based Bayesian optimal interval (U-BOIN) phase I/II design to identify the optimal biological dose for targeted and immune therapies.
Zhou Y; Lee JJ; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2019 Dec; 38(28):5299-5316. PubMed ID: 31621952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimal phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology--a simulation study.
Gerke O; Siedentop H
Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5329-44. PubMed ID: 17849502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Evaluation of irrational dose assignment definitions using the continual reassessment method.
Wages NA; Bagley E
Clin Trials; 2019 Dec; 16(6):665-672. PubMed ID: 31547691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
