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 *

319 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27581751)

  • 21. Adaptive design improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies.
    Heyd JM; Carlin BP
    Stat Med; 1999 Jun; 18(11):1307-21. PubMed ID: 10399198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. U-PRO-CRM: designing patient-centred dose-finding trials with patient-reported outcomes.
    Alger E; Lee SM; Cheung YK; Yap C
    ESMO Open; 2024 Jul; 9(7):103626. PubMed ID: 38968929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.
    Wheeler GM; Mander AP; Bedding A; Brock K; Cornelius V; Grieve AP; Jaki T; Love SB; Odondi L; Weir CJ; Yap C; Bond SJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):18. PubMed ID: 30658575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Interplay of priors and skeletons in two-stage continual reassessment method.
    Iasonos A; O'Quigley J
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(30):4321-36. PubMed ID: 22893483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Three-dose-cohort designs in cancer phase I trials.
    Huang B; Chappell R
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2070-93. PubMed ID: 17764082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Rolling continual reassessment method with overdose control: An efficient and safe dose escalation design.
    Zhu J; Sabanés Bové D; Liao Z; Beyer U; Yung G; Sarkar S
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Aug; 107():106436. PubMed ID: 34000410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials.
    Faries D
    J Biopharm Stat; 1994 Jul; 4(2):147-64. PubMed ID: 7951271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials.
    Piantadosi S; Fisher JD; Grossman S
    Cancer Chemother Pharmacol; 1998; 41(6):429-36. PubMed ID: 9554585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. A Bayesian three-parameter logistic model for early- and late-onset DLTs in oncology Phase I studies.
    Zheng W; Zhao Y; Lu Y; Miao H; Liu H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(2):339-51. PubMed ID: 25629564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Continual reassessment methods in phase I trials of the combination of two drugs in oncology.
    Kramar A; Lebecq A; Candalh E
    Stat Med; 1999 Jul; 18(14):1849-64. PubMed ID: 10407256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework.
    Doussau A; Asselain B; Le Deley MC; Geoerger B; Doz F; Vassal G; Paoletti X
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):657-65. PubMed ID: 22521954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method.
    O'Quigley J; Zohar S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Sep; 20(5):1013-25. PubMed ID: 20721788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.