230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35699319)
1. Multi-stage dose expansion cohort (MSDEC) design with Bayesian stopping rule.
Wang S; Tan M
J Biopharm Stat; 2022 Jul; 32(4):600-612. PubMed ID: 35699319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. A new pragmatic design for dose escalation in phase 1 clinical trials using an adaptive continual reassessment method.
North B; Kocher HM; Sasieni P
BMC Cancer; 2019 Jun; 19(1):632. PubMed ID: 31242873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Incorporating historical information to improve phase I clinical trials.
Zhou Y; Lee JJ; Wang S; Bailey S; Yuan Y
Pharm Stat; 2021 Nov; 20(6):1017-1034. PubMed ID: 33793044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials.
Ishizuka N; Ohashi Y
Stat Med; 2001 Sep 15-30; 20(17-18):2661-81. PubMed ID: 11523075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Performance of phase-I dose finding designs with and without a run-in intra-patient dose escalation stage.
Labrenz J; Edelmann D; Heitmann JS; Salih HR; Kopp-Schneider A; Schlenk RF
Pharm Stat; 2023 Mar; 22(2):236-247. PubMed ID: 36285348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Borrowing historical information to improve phase I clinical trials using meta-analytic-predictive priors.
Chen X; Zhang J; Jiang Q; Yan F
J Biopharm Stat; 2022 Jan; 32(1):34-52. PubMed ID: 35594366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. CRM2DIM: A SAS macro for implementing the dual-agent Bayesian continual reassessment method.
Bayar MA; Ivanova A; Le Teuff G
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2019 Jul; 176():211-223. PubMed ID: 31200907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Continual reassessment method for dose escalation clinical trials in oncology: a comparison of prior skeleton approaches using AZD3514 data.
James GD; Symeonides SN; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
BMC Cancer; 2016 Aug; 16(1):703. PubMed ID: 27581751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies.
Zohar S; Chevret S
Stat Med; 2001 Oct; 20(19):2827-43. PubMed ID: 11568943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An extended Bayesian semi-mechanistic dose-finding design for phase I oncology trials using pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information.
Yang C; Li Y
Stat Med; 2024 Feb; 43(4):689-705. PubMed ID: 38110304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Early completion of phase I cancer clinical trials with Bayesian optimal interval design.
Kojima M
Stat Med; 2021 Jun; 40(14):3215-3226. PubMed ID: 33844323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bayesian interval-based oncology dose-finding design with repeated quasi-continuous toxicity model.
Zhao D; Zhu J; Wang L
Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Mar; 102():106265. PubMed ID: 33418097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Adaptive design for identifying maximum tolerated dose early to accelerate dose-finding trial.
Kojima M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Apr; 22(1):97. PubMed ID: 35382745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. A nonparametric Bayesian continual reassessment method in single-agent dose-finding studies.
Tang N; Wang S; Ye G
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Dec; 18(1):172. PubMed ID: 30563454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
