527 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32631095)
1. 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]
2. Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations.
Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):380-9. PubMed ID: 21652689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Continual reassessment method for partial ordering.
Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
Biometrics; 2011 Dec; 67(4):1555-63. PubMed ID: 21361888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
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. 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]
7. 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]
8. An adaptive multi-stage phase I dose-finding design incorporating continuous efficacy and toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.
Du Y; Yin J; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar SJ
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):271-286. PubMed ID: 30403559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. A surface-free design for phase I dual-agent combination trials.
Mozgunov P; Gasparini M; Jaki T
Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Oct; 29(10):3093-3109. PubMed ID: 32338145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials.
Conaway MR; Dunbar S; Peddada SD
Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):661-9. PubMed ID: 15339288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Phase I design for completely or partially ordered treatment schedules.
Wages NA; O'Quigley J; Conaway MR
Stat Med; 2014 Feb; 33(4):569-79. PubMed ID: 24114957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Extended model-based designs for more complex dose-finding studies.
O'Quigley J; Conaway M
Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2062-9. PubMed ID: 21351287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. A Bayesian dose-finding design for outcomes evaluated with uncertainty.
Schipper MJ; Yuan Y; Taylor JM; Ten Haken RK; Tsien C; Lawrence TS
Clin Trials; 2021 Jun; 18(3):279-285. PubMed ID: 33884907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Bayesian designs of phase II oncology trials to select maximum effective dose assuming monotonic dose-response relationship.
Guo B; Li Y
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Jul; 14():95. PubMed ID: 25074481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Implementing the time-to-event continual reassessment method in the presence of partial orders in a phase I head and neck cancer trial.
Patel A; Brock K; Slade D; Gaunt C; Kong A; Mehanna H; Billingham L; Gaunt P
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Jan; 24(1):11. PubMed ID: 38218799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
