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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9136069)

  • 21. Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design.
    Taylor JM; Braun TM; Li Z
    Clin Trials; 2006; 3(4):335-48. PubMed ID: 17060208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. An adaptive group sequential design for phase II/III clinical trials that select a single treatment from several.
    Kelly PJ; Stallard N; Todd S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(4):641-58. PubMed ID: 16022169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A type of sample size design in cancer clinical trials for response rate estimation.
    Liu J
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2011 Jan; 32(1):140-6. PubMed ID: 20965278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mixtures of prior distributions for predictive Bayesian sample size calculations in clinical trials.
    Brutti P; De Santis F; Gubbiotti S
    Stat Med; 2009 Jul; 28(17):2185-201. PubMed ID: 19462415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Jung SH; Lee T; Kim K; George SL
    Stat Med; 2004 Feb; 23(4):561-9. PubMed ID: 14755389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Performance and sample size requirements of Bayesian methods for binary outcomes in fixed-dose combination drug studies.
    Holt MM; Stamey JD; Seaman JW; Young DM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009; 19(1):120-32. PubMed ID: 19127471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Bayesian two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.
    Tan SB; Machin D
    Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(19):3407-8. PubMed ID: 16847890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Designing a series of decision-theoretic phase II trials in a small population.
    Hee SW; Stallard N
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(30):4337-51. PubMed ID: 22927289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology.
    Brannath W; Zuber E; Branson M; Bretz F; Gallo P; Posch M; Racine-Poon A
    Stat Med; 2009 May; 28(10):1445-63. PubMed ID: 19266565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Bayesian design of single-arm phase II clinical trials with continuous monitoring.
    Johnson VE; Cook JD
    Clin Trials; 2009 Jun; 6(3):217-26. PubMed ID: 19528131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of single-arm vs. randomized phase II clinical trials: a Bayesian approach.
    Sambucini V
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):474-89. PubMed ID: 24896838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Some thoughts on sample size: a Bayesian-frequentist hybrid approach.
    Gordon Lan KK; Wittes JT
    Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):561-9. PubMed ID: 22865839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach.
    O'Quigley J; Shen LZ
    Biometrics; 1996 Jun; 52(2):673-84. PubMed ID: 8672707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Approximately optimal designs for phase II clinical studies.
    Stallard N
    J Biopharm Stat; 1998 Jul; 8(3):469-87. PubMed ID: 9741860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Predicting the outcome of phase III trials using phase II data: a case study of clinical trial simulation in late stage drug development.
    De Ridder F
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Mar; 96(3):235-41. PubMed ID: 15733220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Simulation-based adjustment after exploratory biomarker subgroup selection in phase II.
    Götte H; Kirchner M; Sailer MO; Kieser M
    Stat Med; 2017 Jul; 36(15):2378-2390. PubMed ID: 28436046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A Bayesian design and analysis for dose-response using informative prior information.
    Smith MK; Marshall S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(5):695-709. PubMed ID: 17037266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Optimal and minimax three-stage designs for phase II oncology clinical trials.
    Chen K; Shan M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Jan; 29(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 17544337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Likelihood ratio and a Bayesian approach were superior to standard noninferiority analysis when the noninferiority margin varied with the control event rate.
    Kim MY; Xue X
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Dec; 57(12):1253-61. PubMed ID: 15617951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.