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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31080909)

  • 1. Sample size calculation for small sample single-arm trials for time-to-event data: Logrank test with normal approximation or test statistic based on exact chi-square distribution?
    Phadnis MA
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2019 Sep; 15():100360. PubMed ID: 31080909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sample size considerations for single-arm clinical trials with time-to-event endpoint using the gamma distribution.
    Dai J; He J; Phadnis MA
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2024 Oct; 41():101344. PubMed ID: 39228686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Sample size calculation for two-arm trials with time-to-event endpoint for nonproportional hazards using the concept of Relative Time when inference is built on comparing Weibull distributions.
    Phadnis MA; Mayo MS
    Biom J; 2021 Oct; 63(7):1406-1433. PubMed ID: 34272897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sample size calculations for single-arm survival studies using transformations of the Kaplan-Meier estimator.
    Nagashima K; Noma H; Sato Y; Gosho M
    Pharm Stat; 2021 May; 20(3):499-511. PubMed ID: 33347712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Single-arm Phase II cancer survival trial designs.
    Wu J
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(4):644-56. PubMed ID: 26098141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Applicability of sample size calculations based on a comparison of proportions for use with the logrank test.
    Gail MH
    Control Clin Trials; 1985 Jun; 6(2):112-9. PubMed ID: 4006484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Power and sample size for randomized phase III survival trials under the Weibull model.
    Wu J
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(1):16-28. PubMed ID: 24895942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Power calculations for preclinical studies using a K-sample rank test and the Lehmann alternative hypothesis.
    Heller G
    Stat Med; 2006 Aug; 25(15):2543-53. PubMed ID: 16025543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Designing clinical trials with (restricted) mean survival time endpoint: Practical considerations.
    Eaton A; Therneau T; Le-Rademacher J
    Clin Trials; 2020 Jun; 17(3):285-294. PubMed ID: 32063031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bayesian methods for setting sample sizes and choosing allocation ratios in phase II clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints.
    Cotterill A; Whitehead J
    Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(11):1889-903. PubMed ID: 25620687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Single-arm phase II trial design under parametric cure models.
    Wu J
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(3):226-32. PubMed ID: 25846141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An improved one-sample log-rank test.
    Kerschke L; Faldum A; Schmidt R
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Oct; 29(10):2814-2829. PubMed ID: 32131699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessing accuracy of Weibull shape parameter estimate from historical studies for subsequent sample size calculation in clinical trials with time-to-event outcome.
    Phadnis MA; Sharma P; Thewarapperuma N; Chalise P
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2020 Mar; 17():100548. PubMed ID: 32154431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Designing historical control studies with survival endpoints using exact statistical inference.
    Han G
    Pharm Stat; 2021 Jan; 20(1):4-14. PubMed ID: 32743949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Using non-inferiority test of proportions in design of randomized non-inferiority trials with time-to-event endpoint with a focus on low-event-rate setting.
    Ji L; Alonzo TA
    Clin Trials; 2024 Oct; ():17407745241284786. PubMed ID: 39394852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reconsideration of sample size and power calculation for overall survival in cancer clinical trials.
    Jung I; Ko HJ; Rha SY; Nam CM
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2018 Dec; 12():90-91. PubMed ID: 30302417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A simulation study for comparing testing statistics in response-adaptive randomization.
    Gu X; Lee JJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Jun; 10():48. PubMed ID: 20525382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Two-stage optimal designs based on exact variance for a single-arm trial with survival endpoints.
    Shan G
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):797-805. PubMed ID: 32129130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Testing non-inferiority of a new treatment in three-arm clinical trials with binary endpoints.
    Tang NS; Yu B; Tang ML
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Dec; 14():134. PubMed ID: 25524326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A simulation study comparing the power of nine tests of the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome.
    Royston P; B Parmar MK
    Trials; 2020 Apr; 21(1):315. PubMed ID: 32252820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.