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 *

86 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34027221)

  • 1. The importance of loss functions: A note on the evolution of the Toxicity Probability Interval design.
    Siegel J
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2021 Jun; 22():100694. PubMed ID: 34027221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials.
    Ji Y; Liu P; Li Y; Bekele BN
    Clin Trials; 2010 Dec; 7(6):653-63. PubMed ID: 20935021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy, Safety, and Reliability of Novel Phase I Trial Designs.
    Zhou H; Yuan Y; Nie L
    Clin Cancer Res; 2018 Sep; 24(18):4357-4364. PubMed ID: 29661774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Systematic comparison of the statistical operating characteristics of various Phase I oncology designs.
    Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Chang M; Doros G; Massaro J; LaValley M
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2017 Mar; 5():34-48. PubMed ID: 29740620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Keyboard: A Novel Bayesian Toxicity Probability Interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials.
    Yan F; Mandrekar SJ; Yuan Y
    Clin Cancer Res; 2017 Aug; 23(15):3994-4003. PubMed ID: 28546227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. CUSUMIN: A cumulative sum interval design for cancer phase I dose finding studies.
    Hatayama T; Yasui S
    Pharm Stat; 2022 Nov; 21(6):1324-1341. PubMed ID: 35833753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Extensions of the mTPI and TEQR designs to include non-monotone efficacy in addition to toxicity for optimal dose determination for early phase immunotherapy oncology trials.
    Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Li D; LaValley M
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2018 Jun; 10():62-76. PubMed ID: 29696160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Bayesian interval dose-finding design addressingOckham's razor: mTPI-2.
    Guo W; Wang SJ; Yang S; Lynn H; Ji Y
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2017 Jul; 58():23-33. PubMed ID: 28458054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials.
    Yuan Y; Hess KR; Hilsenbeck SG; Gilbert MR
    Clin Cancer Res; 2016 Sep; 22(17):4291-301. PubMed ID: 27407096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On the relative efficiency of model-assisted designs: a conditional approach.
    Lin R; Yuan Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(4):648-662. PubMed ID: 31258039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluating the effects of design parameters on the performances of phase I trial designs.
    Zhu Y; Hwang WT; Li Y
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2019 Sep; 15():100379. PubMed ID: 31193764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. TITE-BOIN-ET: Time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes.
    Takeda K; Morita S; Taguri M
    Pharm Stat; 2020 May; 19(3):335-349. PubMed ID: 31829517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. R-TPI: rolling toxicity probability interval design to shorten the duration and maintain safety of phase I trials.
    Guo W; Ji Y; Li D
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):411-424. PubMed ID: 30744484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. BOIN-ET: Bayesian optimal interval design for dose finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes.
    Takeda K; Taguri M; Morita S
    Pharm Stat; 2018 Jul; 17(4):383-395. PubMed ID: 29700965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Revisiting isotonic phase I design in the era of model-assisted dose-finding.
    Wages NA; Conaway MR
    Clin Trials; 2018 Oct; 15(5):524-529. PubMed ID: 30101616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Overall success rate of a safe and efficacious drug: Results using six phase 1 designs, each followed by standard phase 2 and 3 designs.
    Ruppert AS; Shoben AB
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2018 Dec; 12():40-50. PubMed ID: 30225393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Time-to-Event Bayesian Optimal Interval Design to Accelerate Phase I Trials.
    Yuan Y; Lin R; Li D; Nie L; Warren KE
    Clin Cancer Res; 2018 Oct; 24(20):4921-4930. PubMed ID: 29769209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An adaptive dose-finding design based on both safety and immunologic responses in cancer clinical trials.
    Chiuzan C; Garrett-Mayer E; Nishimura M
    Stat Biopharm Res; 2018; 10(3):185-195. PubMed ID: 30524665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.