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 *

213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29164641)

  • 1. Five criteria for using a surrogate endpoint to predict treatment effect based on data from multiple previous trials.
    Baker SG
    Stat Med; 2018 Feb; 37(4):507-518. PubMed ID: 29164641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint.
    Baker SG
    Biostatistics; 2006 Jan; 7(1):58-70. PubMed ID: 15972889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Surrogate endpoint analysis: an exercise in extrapolation.
    Baker SG; Kramer BS
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Mar; 105(5):316-20. PubMed ID: 23264679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials.
    Baker SG
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Oct; 17(5):505-14. PubMed ID: 18285436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation.
    Burzykowski T; Buyse M
    Pharm Stat; 2006; 5(3):173-86. PubMed ID: 17080751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Statistical controversies in clinical research: an initial evaluation of a surrogate end point using a single randomized clinical trial and the Prentice criteria.
    Heller G
    Ann Oncol; 2015 Oct; 26(10):2012-6. PubMed ID: 26254442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How to use frailtypack for validating failure-time surrogate endpoints using individual patient data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.
    Sofeu CL; Rondeau V
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(1):e0228098. PubMed ID: 31990928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make.
    Baker SG; Kramer BS
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Sep; 3():16. PubMed ID: 12962545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Odds ratio for 2 × 2 tables: Mantel-Haenszel estimator, profile likelihood, and presence of surrogate responses.
    Banerjee B; Biswas A
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(3):649-59. PubMed ID: 24697719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Exploring the relationship between the causal-inference and meta-analytic paradigms for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints.
    Van der Elst W; Molenberghs G; Alonso A
    Stat Med; 2016 Apr; 35(8):1281-98. PubMed ID: 26612787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Imputation of a true endpoint from a surrogate: application to a cluster randomized controlled trial with partial information on the true endpoint.
    Nixon RM; Duffy SW; Fender GR
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Sep; 3():17. PubMed ID: 14507420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Does the Prentice criterion validate surrogate endpoints?
    Berger VW
    Stat Med; 2004 May; 23(10):1571-8. PubMed ID: 15122737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. One-step validation method for surrogate endpoints using data from multiple randomized cancer clinical trials with failure-time endpoints.
    Sofeu CL; Emura T; Rondeau V
    Stat Med; 2019 Jul; 38(16):2928-2942. PubMed ID: 30997685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A closed-form estimator for meta-analysis and surrogate markers evaluation.
    Flórez AJ; Molenberghs G; Verbeke G; Abad AA
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):318-332. PubMed ID: 30365364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Likelihood-based methods for evaluating principal surrogacy in augmented vaccine trials.
    Liu W; Zhang B; Zhang H; Zhang Z
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2017 Apr; 26(2):984-996. PubMed ID: 25549966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Differences in surrogate threshold effect estimates between original and simplified correlation-based validation approaches.
    Schürmann C; Sieben W
    Stat Med; 2016 Mar; 35(7):1049-62. PubMed ID: 26522510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Statistical evaluation of surrogate endpoints with examples from cancer clinical trials.
    Buyse M; Molenberghs G; Paoletti X; Oba K; Alonso A; Van der Elst W; Burzykowski T
    Biom J; 2016 Jan; 58(1):104-32. PubMed ID: 25682941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research.
    Fleming TR; Prentice RL; Pepe MS; Glidden D
    Stat Med; 1994 May; 13(9):955-68. PubMed ID: 8047747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Validation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials via principal stratification with an application to a prostate cancer trial.
    Tanaka S; Matsuyama Y; Ohashi Y
    Stat Med; 2017 Aug; 36(19):2963-2977. PubMed ID: 28485043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes.
    Molenberghs G; Geys H; Buyse M
    Stat Med; 2001 Oct; 20(20):3023-38. PubMed ID: 11590630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.