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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28063769)

  • 1. Immunogenicity assay cut point determination using nonparametric tolerance limit.
    Zhang J; Li W; Roskos LK; Yang H
    J Immunol Methods; 2017 Mar; 442():29-34. PubMed ID: 28063769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Non-normal random effects models for immunogenicity assay cut point determination.
    Zhang J; Yu B; Zhang L; Roskos L; Richman L; Yang H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(2):295-306. PubMed ID: 25356500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Statistical evaluation of several methods for cut-point determination of immunogenicity screening assay.
    Shen M; Dong X; Tsong Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(2):269-79. PubMed ID: 25356783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A new method for identification of outliers in immunogenicity assay cut point data.
    Zhang J; Arends RH; Kubiak RJ; Roskos LK; Liang M; Lee N; Chen CC; Yang H
    J Immunol Methods; 2020; 484-485():112817. PubMed ID: 32615125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A novel gamma-fitting statistical method for anti-drug antibody assays to establish assay cut points for data with non-normal distribution.
    Schlain B; Amaravadi L; Donley J; Wickramasekera A; Bennett D; Subramanyam M
    J Immunol Methods; 2010 Jan; 352(1-2):161-8. PubMed ID: 19891969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An immunoinhibition approach to overcome the impact of pre-existing antibodies on cut point establishment for immunogenicity assessment of moxetumomab pasudotox.
    Schneider AK; Vainshtein I; Roskos LK; Chavez C; Sun B; Liang M
    J Immunol Methods; 2016 Aug; 435():68-76. PubMed ID: 27220271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Statistical considerations for calculation of immunogenicity screening assay cut points.
    Hoffman D; Berger M
    J Immunol Methods; 2011 Oct; 373(1-2):200-8. PubMed ID: 21906599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sample size consideration for immunoassay screening cut-point determination.
    Zhang J; Zhang L; Yang H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(3):535-45. PubMed ID: 24697778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Elucidation of the statistical factors that influence anti-drug antibody cut point setting through a multi-laboratory study.
    Nishimura K; Shibata H; Aoyama M; Hosogi J; Kadotsuji K; Minoura K; Mori T; Nakamura T; Nishimiya K; Nomura T; Saito T; Soma M; Wakabayashi H; Sakamoto N; Niimi S; Katori N; Saito Y; Ishii-Watabe A
    Bioanalysis; 2019 Mar; 11(6):509-524. PubMed ID: 30945932
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Anti-drug Antibody Assay Conditions Significantly Impact Assay Screen and Confirmatory Cut-Points.
    Gorovits B; Wang Y; Zhu L; Araya M; Kamerud J; Lepsy C
    AAPS J; 2019 Jun; 21(4):71. PubMed ID: 31161482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Summary of confirmation cut point discussions.
    Smith HW; Moxness M; Marsden R
    AAPS J; 2011 Jun; 13(2):227-9. PubMed ID: 21380610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Immunogenicity: prediction, detection and effective assay development.
    Gorovits B
    Bioanalysis; 2010 Sep; 2(9):1539-45. PubMed ID: 21083282
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Methods and applications of percentile estimation.
    Xia Q; Tsong Y; Weng YT
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Mar; 30(2):267-276. PubMed ID: 31237475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A formal comparison of different methods for establishing cut points to distinguish positive and negative samples in immunoassays.
    Jaki T; Lawo JP; Wolfsegger MJ; Singer J; Allacher P; Horling F
    J Pharm Biomed Anal; 2011 Jul; 55(5):1148-56. PubMed ID: 21561734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Excessive outlier removal may result in cut points that are not suitable for immunogenicity assessments.
    Kubiak RJ; Zhang J; Ren P; Yang H; Roskos LK
    J Immunol Methods; 2018 Dec; 463():105-111. PubMed ID: 30312600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Statistical methods of screening cut point determination in immunogenicity studies.
    Shen M; Dai T
    Bioanalysis; 2021 Apr; 13(7):551-563. PubMed ID: 33755515
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Understanding the Supersensitive Anti-Drug Antibody Assay: Unexpected High Anti-Drug Antibody Incidence and Its Clinical Relevance.
    Song S; Yang L; Trepicchio WL; Wyant T
    J Immunol Res; 2016; 2016():3072586. PubMed ID: 27340678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Detection, measurement and characterization of unwanted antibodies induced by therapeutic biologicals.
    Wadhwa M; Gaines-Das R; Thorpe R; Mire-Sluis A
    Dev Biol (Basel); 2005; 122():155-70. PubMed ID: 16375260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An Alternative Data Transformation Approach for ADA Cut Point Determination: Why Not Use a Weibull Transformation?
    Jordan G; Staack RF
    AAPS J; 2021 Aug; 23(5):97. PubMed ID: 34389881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Feedback from the European Bioanalysis Forum: focus workshop on current analysis of immunogenicity: best practices and regulatory hurdles.
    Goodman J; Cowen S; Devanarayan V; Egging D; Emrich T; Golob M; Kramer D; McNally J; Munday J; Nelson R; Pedras-Vasconcelos JA; Piironen T; Sickert D; Skibeli V; Fjording MS; Timmerman P
    Bioanalysis; 2018 Feb; 10(4):197-204. PubMed ID: 29345496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.