Mark J. Ratain to Risk Assessment
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Mark J. Ratain has written about Risk Assessment.
Connection Strength
0.444
-
The Outlier in All of Us: Why Implementing Pharmacogenomics Could Matter for Everyone. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Apr; 99(4):401-4.
Score: 0.078
-
Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of erlotinib for solid tumors in patients with hepatic or renal dysfunction: CALGB 60101. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 20; 25(21):3055-60.
Score: 0.043
-
Estimation of the glomerular filtration rate in cancer patients: a new formula for new drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15; 21(14):2633-5.
Score: 0.032
-
Appraisal and development of evidence-based clinical decision support to enable perioperative pharmacogenomic application. Pharmacogenomics J. 2021 12; 21(6):691-711.
Score: 0.028
-
Weight-Based Dosing of Pembrolizumab Every 6 Weeks in the Time of COVID-19. JAMA Oncol. 2020 11 01; 6(11):1694-1695.
Score: 0.027
-
Genomic Analysis of Germline Variation Associated with Survival of Patients with Colorectal Cancer Treated with Chemotherapy Plus Biologics in CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance). Clin Cancer Res. 2021 01 01; 27(1):267-275.
Score: 0.027
-
Genomewide Meta-Analysis Validates a Role for S1PR1 in Microtubule Targeting Agent-Induced Sensory Peripheral Neuropathy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 09; 108(3):625-634.
Score: 0.026
-
Pharmacogenomic-Based Decision Support to Predict Adherence to Medications. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 08; 108(2):368-376.
Score: 0.026
-
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.
Score: 0.026
-
Drug combinations: dangerous liaisons or great expectations? Ann Oncol. 1999 Apr; 10(4):375-6.
Score: 0.024
-
Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for UGT1A1 and Atazanavir Prescribing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016 04; 99(4):363-9.
Score: 0.019
-
Pushing the envelope: informed consent in phase I trials. Ann Oncol. 1995 Apr; 6(4):321-3.
Score: 0.018
-
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.
Score: 0.017
-
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.
Score: 0.015
-
Comprehensive pharmacogenetic analysis of irinotecan neutropenia and pharmacokinetics. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 01; 27(16):2604-14.
Score: 0.012
-
Dose-ranging pharmacodynamic study of tipifarnib (R115777) in patients with relapsed and refractory hematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Dec 01; 22(23):4816-22.
Score: 0.009
-
Study of cohort-specific consent and patient control in phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jul; 16(7):2305-12.
Score: 0.006
-
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.
Score: 0.005
-
Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 1995 May; 13(5):1062-72.
Score: 0.005