ReviewPharmacogenomics2005
Large recursive partitioning analysis of complex disease pharmacogenetic studies. II. Statistical considerations.
Review in Pharmacogenomics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel machine-learning prediction tools for overall survival of patients with chondrosarcoma: Based on recursive partitioning analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Polymorphic variation in the GC and CASR genes and associations with vitamin D metabolite concentration and metachronous colorectal neoplasia.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2012Article
- Use of pairwise marker combination and recursive partitioning in a pharmacogenetic genome-wide scan.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying genetic variations predictive of important phenotypes, such as disease susceptibility, drug efficacy, and adverse events, remains a challenging task. There are individual polymorphisms that can be tested one at a time, but there is the more difficult problem of the identification of combinations of polymorphisms or even more complex interactions of genes with environmental factors. Diseases, drug responses or side effects can result from different mechanisms. Identification of subgroups of people where there is a common mechanism is a problem for diagnosis and prescribing of treatment. Recursive partitioning (RP) is a simple statistical tool for segmenting a population into non-overlapping groups where the response of interest, disease susceptibility, drug efficacy and adverse events are more homogeneous within the segments. We suggest that the use of RP is not only more technically feasible than other search methods but it is less susceptible to multiple-testing problems. The numbers of combinations of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions is potentially astronomical and RP greatly reduces the effective search and inference space. Moreover, the certain reliance of RP on the presence of marginal effects is justifiable as was found by using analytical and numerical arguments. In the context of haplotype analysis, results suggest that the analysis of individual SNPs is likely to be successful even when susceptibilities are determined by haplotypes. Retrospective clinical studies where cases and controls are collected will be a common design. This report provides methods that can be used to adjust the RP analysis to reflect the population incidence of the response of interest. Confidence limits on the incidence of the response in the segmented subgroups are also discussed. RP is a straightforward way to create realistic subgroups, and prediction intervals for the within-subgroup disease incidence are easily obtained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.