English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

If explicit, formal consideration of clinical pharmacology at all informs thedesign and conduct of modern oncology dose-finding trials, the designsthemselves hardly attest to this. Yet in conducting a trial, investigatorsaffirm that they hold reasonable expectations of participant safety -expectations that necessarily depend on beliefs about how certain pharmacologicparameters are distributed in the study population. Thus, these beliefs areimplicit in a trial's presumed conformance to a community standard of safety,and may therefore to some extent be reverse-engineered from trial designs. Forone popular form of dose-escalation trial design, I demonstrate here how thismay be done.

What Were They Thinking? Pharmacologic priors implicit in a choice of 3+3 dose-escalation design