The University of Chicago Header Logo

Connection

Mark Ratain to United States

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Mark Ratain has written about United States.
Mark Ratain
Connection Strength
1.406
United States
  1. Strengthening the Food and Drug Administration Office of Clinical Pharmacology's Labeling Authority. Clin Transl Sci. 2025 Sep; 18(9):e70337.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  2. Accelerated Approval Program Versus NCCN Guidelines as Mechanisms for Early Drug Access. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2024 08; 22(6):435-436.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.086
  3. Special designations and the US Food and Drug Administration's "dual mandate". J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024 02 08; 116(2):177-179.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  4. 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: 0.082
  5. Project Optimus: Is the US Food and Drug Administration Waiving Dose Optimization for Orphan Drugs? JAMA Oncol. 2023 11 01; 9(11):1489-1490.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  6. Do patent applications and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements between the National Cancer Institute and industry serve the public interest? Nat Biotechnol. 2023 11; 41(11):1517-1519.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  7. Interventional pharmacoeconomics for immune checkpoint inhibitors through alternative dosing strategies. Br J Cancer. 2023 10; 129(9):1389-1396.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  8. 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: 0.071
  9. 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: 0.067
  10. 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: 0.056
  11. Drug-Drug Interactions With Oral Antineoplastic Agents. JAMA Oncol. 2017 06 01; 3(6):736-738.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  12. 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: 0.047
  13. 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: 0.043
  14. Forecasting unanticipated consequences of "The Sunshine Act": mostly cloudy. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 01; 32(22):2293-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  15. Are drug labels static or dynamic? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Sep; 94(3):302-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  16. Why RECIST works and why it should stay--reply to counterpoint. Cancer Res. 2012 Oct 15; 72(20):5158.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.038
  17. Flushing oral oncology drugs down the toilet. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Oct 20; 29(30):3958-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  18. 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: 0.033
  19. Nonprofit biomedical companies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Aug; 84(2):194-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  20. The investigational drug steering committee. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2007 Oct; 5(10):779-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  21. Genetic nondiscrimination legislation: a critical prerequisite for pharmacogenomics data sharing. Pharmacogenomics. 2007 May; 8(5):519.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  22. Personalized medicine: building the GPS to take us there. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Mar; 81(3):321-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  23. Using Quantitative Approaches to Optimize Dosages for New Combinations and Subsequent Indications for Oncology Drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2025 Oct; 118(4):772-777.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  24. Conflict-of-interest policies. N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 29; 344(13):1018.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  25. Drug combinations: dangerous liaisons or great expectations? Ann Oncol. 1999 Apr; 10(4):375-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  26. Oral chemotherapy: rationale and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jul; 16(7):2557-67.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  27. 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: 0.013
  28. 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: 0.013
  29. Disease-drug database for pharmacogenomic-based prescribing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016 08; 100(2):179-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  30. 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: 0.011
  31. 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: 0.010
  32. Unsupported off-label chemotherapy in metastatic colon cancer. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 29; 12:481.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  33. 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: 0.009
  34. 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: 0.008
  35. 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: 0.008
  36. 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: 0.008
  37. 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: 0.005
  38. 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: 0.003
  39. 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
  40. 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: 0.002
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.