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.
6. Consonant closed likelihood ratio test procedures with application to dose-response study. Wang B; Cui X Stat Med; 2010 Nov; 29(25):2617-30. PubMed ID: 20740552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. On the assessment of dose proportionality: a comparison of two slope approaches. Cheng B; Chow SC; Su WL J Biopharm Stat; 2006 May; 16(3):385-92. PubMed ID: 16724492 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Model-based approaches for time-dependent dose finding with repeated binary data. Benda N Stat Med; 2010 May; 29(10):1096-106. PubMed ID: 20082362 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Identifying effective and/or safe doses by stepwise confidence intervals for ratios. Bretz F; Hothorn LA; Hsu JC Stat Med; 2003 Mar; 22(6):847-58. PubMed ID: 12627404 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A note on multiple testing procedures in dose finding. Bauer P Biometrics; 1997 Sep; 53(3):1125-8. PubMed ID: 9333343 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of gatekeeping and other testing methods for identifying superior drug combinations in bifactorial designs with isotonic parameters. Soulakova JN J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):635-49. PubMed ID: 21516561 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Confidence intervals and p-values for Williams' and other step-down multiple comparison tests against control. Channon EJ; McEntegart DJ J Biopharm Stat; 2001; 11(1-2):45-63. PubMed ID: 11459442 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Two-stage designs for dose-finding trials with a biologic endpoint using stepwise tests. Polley MY; Cheung YK Biometrics; 2008 Mar; 64(1):232-41. PubMed ID: 17573866 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Confidence regions for Bonferroni-based closed tests extended to more general closed tests. Guilbaud O; Karlsson P J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):682-707. PubMed ID: 21516564 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Poly-k-trend tests for survival adjusted analysis of tumor rates formulated as approximate multiple contrast test. Schaarschmidt F; Sill M; Hothorn LA J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(5):934-48. PubMed ID: 18781526 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of false positive rates of peto and poly-3 methods for long-term carcinogenicity data analysis using multiple comparison adjustment method suggested by Lin and Rahman. Rahman MA; Lin KK J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(5):949-58. PubMed ID: 18781527 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing the adequacy of variance function in heteroscedastic regression models. Wang L; Zhou XH Biometrics; 2007 Dec; 63(4):1218-25. PubMed ID: 17484775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Design and sample size for evaluating combinations of drugs of linear and loglinear dose-response curves. Fang HB; Tian GL; Li W; Tan M J Biopharm Stat; 2009 Jul; 19(4):625-40. PubMed ID: 20183430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A dose-response test via closed-form solutions for constrained MLEs in survival/sacrifice experiments. Kim W; Ahn H; Moon H Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(3):694-708. PubMed ID: 16596576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Sample size determinations for Welch's test in one-way heteroscedastic ANOVA. Jan SL; Shieh G Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 Feb; 67(1):72-93. PubMed ID: 23316952 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]