The University of Chicago Header Logo

Connection

Mark J. Ratain to United States

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Mark J. Ratain has written about United States.
Connection Strength

1.446
  1. Special designations and the US Food and Drug Administration's "dual mandate". J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024 Feb 08; 116(2):177-179.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.100
  2. An Ethical and Financial Obligation for Sickle Cell Disease Gene Therapy in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2024 01; 177(1):85-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.099
  3. Project Optimus: Is the US Food and Drug Administration Waiving Dose Optimization for Orphan Drugs? JAMA Oncol. 2023 Nov 01; 9(11):1489-1490.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  4. Do patent applications and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements between the National Cancer Institute and industry serve the public interest? Nat Biotechnol. 2023 Nov; 41(11):1517-1519.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  5. Interventional pharmacoeconomics for immune checkpoint inhibitors through alternative dosing strategies. Br J Cancer. 2023 10; 129(9):1389-1396.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.097
  6. Dose Optimization of Sotorasib: Is the US Food and Drug Administration Sending a Message? J Clin Oncol. 2021 11 01; 39(31):3423-3426.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  7. Accelerated Approval of Anticancer Drugs: Lessons Learned From the Example of Olaratumab. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021 07; 110(1):29-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  8. Prospective International Randomized Phase II Study of Low-Dose Abiraterone With Food Versus Standard Dose Abiraterone In Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018 05 10; 36(14):1389-1395.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.067
  9. Drug-Drug Interactions With Oral Antineoplastic Agents. JAMA Oncol. 2017 06 01; 3(6):736-738.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.063
  10. Impact of the 2010 Consensus Recommendations of the Clinical Trial Design Task Force of the NCI Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Nov 15; 21(22):5057-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  11. Design of phase I combination trials: recommendations of the Clinical Trial Design Task Force of the NCI Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Aug 15; 20(16):4210-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  12. Forecasting unanticipated consequences of "The Sunshine Act": mostly cloudy. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 01; 32(22):2293-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  13. Are drug labels static or dynamic? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Sep; 94(3):302-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  14. Why RECIST works and why it should stay--reply to counterpoint. Cancer Res. 2012 Oct 15; 72(20):5158.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  15. Flushing oral oncology drugs down the toilet. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Oct 20; 29(30):3958-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  16. Inconsistent labeling of food effect for oral agents across therapeutic areas: differences between oncology and non-oncology products. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Sep 01; 16(17):4446-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  17. Nonprofit biomedical companies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Aug; 84(2):194-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  18. The investigational drug steering committee. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2007 Oct; 5(10):779-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  19. Genetic nondiscrimination legislation: a critical prerequisite for pharmacogenomics data sharing. Pharmacogenomics. 2007 May; 8(5):519.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  20. Personalized medicine: building the GPS to take us there. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Mar; 81(3):321-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  21. Conflict-of-interest policies. N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 29; 344(13):1018.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  22. Drug combinations: dangerous liaisons or great expectations? Ann Oncol. 1999 Apr; 10(4):375-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  23. Oral chemotherapy: rationale and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jul; 16(7):2557-67.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  24. The Pharmacogenomics Research Network Translational Pharmacogenetics Program: Outcomes and Metrics of Pharmacogenetic Implementations Across Diverse Healthcare Systems. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Sep; 102(3):502-510.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  25. Patient Perceptions of Care as Influenced by a Large Institutional Pharmacogenomic Implementation Program. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017 07; 102(1):106-114.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  26. Disease-drug database for pharmacogenomic-based prescribing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016 08; 100(2):179-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  27. Population pharmacodynamic study of amonafide: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Mar; 13(3):741-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  28. Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Oct 20; 85(20):1637-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  29. Unsupported off-label chemotherapy in metastatic colon cancer. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 29; 12:481.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  30. Opportunities and challenges in the development of experimental drug combinations for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Aug 17; 103(16):1222-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  31. Cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology: setting a research agenda to accelerate translation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Nov 17; 102(22):1698-705.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  32. The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Mar 15; 16(6):1764-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  33. Guidelines for the development and incorporation of biomarker studies in early clinical trials of novel agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Mar 15; 16(6):1745-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  34. Inside information: Financial conflicts of interest for research subjects in early phase clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 May 05; 96(9):656-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  35. Learning from our patients: one participant's impact on clinical trial research and informed consent. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jun 01; 126(11):892-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  36. Phase I study of paclitaxel and topotecan in patients with advanced tumors: a cancer and leukemia group B study. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Sep; 13(9):2230-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  37. Ethical issues in phase I oncology research: a comparison of investigators and institutional review board chairpersons. J Clin Oncol. 1992 Nov; 10(11):1810-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.