Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Mayoh, Chelsea

  • Google
  • 3
  • 15
  • 46

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (3/3 displayed)

  • 2019Predictors of Success of Phase II Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials6citations
  • 2019OBI-3424, a Novel AKR1C3-Activated Prodrug, Exhibits Potent Efficacy against Preclinical Models of T-ALL40citations
  • 2017Abstract 1175: Inhibition of NAMPT as a novel therapeutic strategy for infant leukemiacitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Biktasova, Asel
1 / 1 shared
Karsa, Mawar
1 / 2 shared
Cheung, Leanna
1 / 1 shared
Kosciolek, Angelika
1 / 1 shared
Henderson, Michelle J.
1 / 2 shared
Evans, Kathryn
1 / 1 shared
Kees, Ursula R.
1 / 1 shared
Korotchkina, Lioubov
1 / 1 shared
Somers, Klaartje
1 / 2 shared
Norris, Murray D.
1 / 2 shared
Haber, Michelle
1 / 2 shared
Middlemiss, Shiloh
1 / 1 shared
Gudkov, Andrei V.
1 / 1 shared
Lock, Richard B.
1 / 2 shared
Chernova, Olga B.
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2019
2017

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Biktasova, Asel
  • Karsa, Mawar
  • Cheung, Leanna
  • Kosciolek, Angelika
  • Henderson, Michelle J.
  • Evans, Kathryn
  • Kees, Ursula R.
  • Korotchkina, Lioubov
  • Somers, Klaartje
  • Norris, Murray D.
  • Haber, Michelle
  • Middlemiss, Shiloh
  • Gudkov, Andrei V.
  • Lock, Richard B.
  • Chernova, Olga B.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Predictors of Success of Phase II Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials

  • Mayoh, Chelsea
Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>There are limited data to predict which novel childhood cancer therapies are likely to be successful. To help rectify this, we sought to identify the factors that impact the success of phase II clinical trials for pediatric malignancies.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We examined the impact of 24 preclinical and trial design variables for their influence on 132 phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials. Success was determined by an objective assessment of patient response, with data analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Pearson's chi-square test, and logistic regression models.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Trials that evaluated patients with a single histological cancer type were more successful than those that assessed multiple different cancer types (68% vs. 47%, 27%, and 17% for 1, 2–3, 4–7, and 8+; p &amp;lt; .005). Trials on liquid or extracranial solid tumors were more successful than central nervous system or combined trials (70%, 60%, 38%, and 24%; p &amp;lt; .005), and trials of combination therapies were more successful than single agents (71% vs. 28%; p &amp;lt; .005). Trials that added therapies to standard treatment backbones were more successful than trials testing novel therapies alone or those that incorporated novel agents (p &amp;lt; .005), and trials initiated based on the results of adult studies were less likely to succeed (p &amp;lt; .05). For 61% of trials (80/132), we were unable to locate any relevant preclinical findings to support the trial. When preclinical studies were carried out (52/132), there was no evidence that the conduct of any preclinical experiments made the trial more likely to succeed (p &amp;lt; .005).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials that examine a single cancer type and use combination therapies have the highest possibility of clinical success. Trials building upon a standard treatment regimen were also more successful. The conduct of preclinical experiments did not improve clinical success, emphasizing the need for a better understanding of the translational relevance of current preclinical testing paradigms.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • phase
  • experiment
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • size-exclusion chromatography