The University of Chicago Header Logo
Last Name



This is a "connection" page, showing publications co-authored by Christopher Daugherty and Mark J. Ratain.

Connection Strength
  1. Daugherty CK, Banik DM, Janish L, Ratain MJ. Quantitative analysis of ethical issues in phase I trials: a survey interview of 144 advanced cancer patients. IRB. 2000 May-Jun; 22(3):6-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.224
  2. Hlubocky FJ, Sachs GA, Larson ER, Nimeiri HS, Cella D, Wroblewski KE, Ratain MJ, Peppercorn JM, Daugherty CK. Do Patients With Advanced Cancer Have the Ability to Make Informed Decisions for Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials? J Clin Oncol. 2018 08 20; 36(24):2483-2491.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.198
  3. de Souza JA, Yap B, Ratain MJ, Daugherty C. User beware: we need more science and less art when measuring financial toxicity in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Apr 20; 33(12):1414-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.157
  4. de Souza JA, Yap BJ, Hlubocky FJ, Wroblewski K, Ratain MJ, Cella D, Daugherty CK. The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: The COST measure. Cancer. 2014 Oct 15; 120(20):3245-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.149
  5. Hlubocky FJ, Larson E, Sachs G, Lesniak MS, Ratain MJ, Daugherty CK. A study of informed consent (IC), age, and cognitive performance (CP) among advanced cancer patients (acp) in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20; 26(15_suppl):9523.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  6. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Emanuel EJ, Farrell AT, Schilsky RL. 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: 0.096
  7. Gray SW, Hlubocky FJ, Ratain MJ, Daugherty CK. 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: 0.093
  8. Hlubocky FJ, Ratain MJ, Wen M, Daugherty CK. Complementary and alternative medicine among advanced cancer patients enrolled on phase I trials: a study of prognosis, quality of life, and preferences for decision making. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 10; 25(5):548-54.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  9. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Minami H, Banik DM, Vogelzang NJ, Stadler WM, Siegler M. Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jul; 16(7):2305-12.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  10. Daugherty CK, Siegler M, Ratain MJ, Zimmer G. 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: 0.046
  11. de Souza JA, Yap BJ, Wroblewski K, Blinder V, Ara├║jo FS, Hlubocky FJ, Nicholas LH, O'Connor JM, Brockstein B, Ratain MJ, Daugherty CK, Cella D. Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: The validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST). Cancer. 2017 02 01; 123(3):476-484.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  12. Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E, Mick R, Siegler M. 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: 0.040
  13. Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Siegler M. Pushing the envelope: informed consent in phase I trials. Ann Oncol. 1995 Apr; 6(4):321-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  14. Mick R, Lane N, Daugherty C, Ratain MJ. Physician-determined patient risk of toxic effects: impact on enrollment and decision making in phase I cancer trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Nov 16; 86(22):1685-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.038
  15. Odenike OM, Sobecks RM, Janisch L, Huo D, Zimmerman TM, Daugherty CK, Ratain MJ, Larson RA. A phase I trial of gemcitabine plus cladribine in patients with advanced hematologic malignant diseases. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2004 Dec; 54(6):553-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
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.