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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38956450)

  • 1. Futility Interim Analysis Based on Probability of Success Using a Surrogate Endpoint.
    Fougeray R; Vidot L; Ratta M; Teng Z; Skanji D; Saint-Hilary G
    Pharm Stat; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 38956450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints.
    Goldman B; LeBlanc M; Crowley J
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(1):14-22. PubMed ID: 18283075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Predictive probability of success using surrogate endpoints.
    Saint-Hilary G; Barboux V; Pannaux M; Gasparini M; Robert V; Mastrantonio G
    Stat Med; 2019 May; 38(10):1753-1774. PubMed ID: 30548627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A novel Bayesian adaptive design incorporating both primary and secondary endpoints for randomized IIB chemoprevention study of women at increased risk for breast cancer.
    Gajewski BJ; Kimler BF; Koestler DC; Mudaranthakam DP; Young K; Fabian CJ
    Trials; 2022 Dec; 23(1):981. PubMed ID: 36471449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Optimal futility stopping boundaries for binary endpoints.
    Freitag MM; Li X; Rauch G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):80. PubMed ID: 38539108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Application of Bayesian predictive probability for interim futility analysis in single-arm phase II trial.
    Chen DT; Schell MJ; Fulp WJ; Pettersson F; Kim S; Gray JE; Haura EB
    Transl Cancer Res; 2019 Jul; 8(Suppl 4):S404-S420. PubMed ID: 31456910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Bayesian adaptive trial design for a newly validated surrogate endpoint.
    Renfro LA; Carlin BP; Sargent DJ
    Biometrics; 2012 Mar; 68(1):258-67. PubMed ID: 21838811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Optimality criteria for futility stopping boundaries for group sequential designs with a continuous endpoint.
    Li X; Herrmann C; Rauch G
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Nov; 20(1):274. PubMed ID: 33153438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating futility of a binary clinical endpoint using early read-outs.
    Van Lancker K; Vandebosch A; Vansteelandt S; De Ridder F
    Stat Med; 2019 Dec; 38(28):5361-5375. PubMed ID: 31631357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Utilization of treatment effect on a surrogate endpoint for planning a study to evaluate treatment effect on a final endpoint.
    Quan H; Xu Z; Luo J; Paux G; Cho M; Chen X
    Pharm Stat; 2023; 22(4):633-649. PubMed ID: 36866697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Trial monitoring via a futility criterion for interim results on a count data endpoint and a continuous endpoint.
    Quan H; Kang T; Fan C; Lu X; Chen X; Luo X; Wei L
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Apr; 103():106316. PubMed ID: 33571688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Using short-term endpoints to improve interim decision making and trial duration in two-stage phase II trials with nested binary endpoints.
    Zocholl D; Kunz CU; Rauch G
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2023 Sep; 32(9):1749-1765. PubMed ID: 37489267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Using an interim analysis based exclusively on an early outcome in a randomized clinical trial with a long-term clinical endpoint.
    Garcia Barrado L; Burzykowski T; Legrand C; Buyse M
    Pharm Stat; 2022 Jan; 21(1):209-219. PubMed ID: 34505395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bayesian predictive power for interim adaptation in seamless phase II/III trials where the endpoint is survival up to some specified timepoint.
    Schmidli H; Bretz F; Racine-Poon A
    Stat Med; 2007 Nov; 26(27):4925-38. PubMed ID: 17590875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Bayesian group sequential designs for phase III emergency medicine trials: a case study using the PARAMEDIC2 trial.
    Ryan EG; Stallard N; Lall R; Ji C; Perkins GD; Gates S
    Trials; 2020 Jan; 21(1):84. PubMed ID: 31937351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Using an early outcome as the sole source of information of interim decisions regarding treatment effect on a long-term endpoint: The non-Gaussian case.
    Garcia Barrado L; Burzykowski T
    Pharm Stat; 2024 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 38837876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Futility interim monitoring with control of type I and II error probabilities using the interim Z-value or confidence limit.
    Lachin JM
    Clin Trials; 2009 Dec; 6(6):565-73. PubMed ID: 19933716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Optimal Futility Interim Design: A Predictive Probability of Success Approach with Time-to-Event Endpoint.
    Tang Z
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(6):1312-9. PubMed ID: 25379701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bayesian Interim Analysis and Efficiency of Phase III Randomized Trials.
    Sherry AD; Msaouel P; Miller AM; Lin TA; Kupferman GS; Jaoude JA; Kouzy R; El-Alam MB; Patel R; Koong A; Lin C; Meirson T; McCaw ZR; Ludmir EB
    medRxiv; 2024 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 38978666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of futility monitoring guidelines using completed phase III oncology trials.
    Zhang Q; Freidlin B; Korn EL; Halabi S; Mandrekar S; Dignam JJ
    Clin Trials; 2017 Feb; 14(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 27590208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.