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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32821082)

  • 1. Simple Methods for Evaluating 4 Types of Biomarkers: Surrogate Endpoint, Prognostic, Predictive, and Cancer Screening.
    Baker SG; Kramer BS
    Biomark Insights; 2020; 15():1177271920946715. PubMed ID: 32821082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes.
    Baker SG; Kramer BS
    Clin Trials; 2015 Aug; 12(4):299-308. PubMed ID: 25385934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cancer Screening Markers: A Simple Strategy to Substantially Reduce the Sample Size for Validation.
    Baker SG
    Med Decis Making; 2019 Feb; 39(2):130-136. PubMed ID: 30658540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Statistical issues in the validation of prognostic, predictive, and surrogate biomarkers.
    Sargent DJ; Mandrekar SJ
    Clin Trials; 2013 Oct; 10(5):647-52. PubMed ID: 23983158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Evaluating biomarkers for prognostic enrichment of clinical trials.
    Kerr KF; Roth J; Zhu K; Thiessen-Philbrook H; Meisner A; Wilson FP; Coca S; Parikh CR
    Clin Trials; 2017 Dec; 14(6):629-638. PubMed ID: 28795578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Identifying treatment effect heterogeneity in clinical trials using subpopulations of events: STEPP.
    Lazar AA; Bonetti M; Cole BF; Yip WK; Gelber RD
    Clin Trials; 2016 Apr; 13(2):169-79. PubMed ID: 26493094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluating Markers for Guiding Treatment.
    Baker SG; Bonetti M
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2016 Sep; 108(9):. PubMed ID: 27193772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints.
    Lassere MN
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Jun; 17(3):303-40. PubMed ID: 17925313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Practical issues arising in an exploratory analysis evaluating progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer.
    Hughes MD
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Oct; 17(5):487-95. PubMed ID: 18285440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials: general principles and an illustration using the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial.
    Cuzick J; Cafferty FH; Edwards R; Møller H; Duffy SW
    J Med Screen; 2007; 14(4):178-85. PubMed ID: 18078562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sensitivity and specificity can change in opposite directions when new predictive markers are added to risk models.
    Van Calster B; Steyerberg EW; D'Agostino RB; Pencina MJ
    Med Decis Making; 2014 May; 34(4):513-22. PubMed ID: 24378915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review.
    Weir CJ; Walley RJ
    Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(2):183-203. PubMed ID: 16252272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prognostic, predictive and potential surrogate markers in castration-resistant prostate cancer.
    Aziz A; Kempkensteffen C; May M; Lebentrau S; Burger M; Chun FK; Brookman-May S
    Expert Rev Anticancer Ther; 2015 Jun; 15(6):649-66. PubMed ID: 25905802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Decision making in surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: the performance of prognostic tests to select patients for lumbar spinal fusion.
    Willems P
    Acta Orthop Suppl; 2013 Feb; 84(349):1-35. PubMed ID: 23427903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.
    Williams C; Brunskill S; Altman D; Briggs A; Campbell H; Clarke M; Glanville J; Gray A; Harris A; Johnston K; Lodge M
    Health Technol Assess; 2006 Sep; 10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. PubMed ID: 16959170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using the weighted area under the net benefit curve for decision curve analysis.
    Talluri R; Shete S
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2016 Jul; 16():94. PubMed ID: 27431531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Use of Biomarkers in Screening for Cancer.
    Duffy MJ
    EJIFCC; 2010 Mar; 21(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 27683350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.