The University of Chicago Header Logo

Connection

Mark J. Ratain to Research Design

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

3.210
  1. 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: 0.384
  2. Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 15; 18(8):2309-15.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.322
  3. Randomized phase II trials: a long-term investment with promising returns. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 20; 103(14):1093-100.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.309
  4. Clarification regarding "phase II trials published in 2002: a cross-specialty comparison showing significant design differences between oncology trials and other medical specialties" and the accompanying commentary, "phase II cancer trials: out of control?". Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Nov 01; 13(21):6540.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.240
  5. Phase II trials published in 2002: a cross-specialty comparison showing significant design differences between oncology trials and other medical specialties. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 15; 13(8):2400-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.231
  6. Testing the wrong hypothesis in phase II oncology trials: there is a better alternative. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Feb 01; 13(3):781-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.228
  7. Randomized discontinuation design: application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Nov 15; 20(22):4478-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.170
  8. Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jun 15; 19(12):3154-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.154
  9. Casting doubt on the scientific utility of post-treatment biopsies in phase 1 trials. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2016 Feb; 14(2):78-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.106
  10. Taking a Measured Approach to Toxicity Data in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Feb 01; 22(3):527-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.104
  11. Targeted therapies: redefining the primary objective of phase I oncology trials. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep; 11(9):503-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  12. 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: 0.091
  13. Cancer pharmacogenomics: strategies and challenges. Nat Rev Genet. 2013 Jan; 14(1):23-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  14. 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: 0.071
  15. 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: 0.071
  16. Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan; 45(2):275-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.065
  17. The investigational drug steering committee. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2007 Oct; 5(10):779-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  18. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 03; 99(19):1455-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  19. The cancer and leukemia group B pharmacology and experimental therapeutics committee: a historical perspective. Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jun 01; 12(11 Pt 2):3612s-6s.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  20. Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006 05; 6(5):409-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  21. Successful implementation of the randomized discontinuation trial design: an application to the study of the putative antiangiogenic agent carboxyaminoimidazole in renal cell carcinoma--CALGB 69901. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 01; 23(16):3726-32.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  22. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Nov 15; 22(22):4442-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  23. Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022. Ann Oncol. 2023 01; 34(1):48-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  24. Development of target-based antineoplastic agents. Invest New Drugs. 2000 Feb; 18(1):7-16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  25. 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: 0.019
  26. Dose-escalation models for combination phase I trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2010 Nov; 46(16):2870-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  27. Ethical, scientific, and regulatory perspectives regarding the use of placebos in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10; 26(8):1371-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  28. Attitudes toward research participation and investigator conflicts of interest among advanced cancer patients participating in early phase clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 10; 25(23):3488-94.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  29. 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: 0.007
  30. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 1995 May; 13(5):1062-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
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.