ArticleBiometrics2008
Comparison of properties of tests for assessing tumor clonality.
Article in Biometrics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clonal relatedness in tumour pairs of breast cancer patients.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2018Article
- USING SOMATIC MUTATION DATA TO TEST TUMORS FOR CLONAL RELATEDNESS.The annals of applied statistics · 2015Article
- DNA copy number analysis of metastatic urothelial carcinoma with comparison to primary tumors.BMC cancer · 2015Article
- Mutational Profiling Can Establish Clonal or Independent Origin in Synchronous Bilateral Breast and Other Tumors.PloS one · 2015Article
- Testing clonality of three and more tumors using their loss of heterozygosity profiles.Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology · 2012Review
- Clonality: an R package for testing clonal relatedness of two tumors from the same patient based on their genomic profiles.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2011Article
- A metastasis or a second independent cancer? Evaluating the clonal origin of tumors using array copy number data.Statistics in medicine · 2010Article
- Testing clonal relatedness of tumors using array comparative genomic hybridization: a statistical challenge.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
summaryIn a recent article Begg et al. (2007, Biometrics 63, 522-530) proposed a statistical test to determine whether or not a diagnosed second primary tumor is biologically independent of the original primary tumor, by comparing patterns of allelic losses at candidate genetic loci. The proposed concordant mutations test is a conditional test, an adaptation of Fisher's exact test, that requires no knowledge of the marginal mutation probabilities. The test was shown to have generally good properties, but is susceptible to anticonservative bias if there is wide variation in mutation probabilities between loci, or if the individual mutation probabilities of the parental alleles for individual patients differ substantially from each other. In this article, a likelihood ratio test is derived in an effort to address these validity issues. This test requires prespecification of the marginal mutation probabilities at each locus, parameters for which some information will typically be available in the literature. In simulations this test is shown to be valid, but to be considerably less efficient than the concordant mutations test for sample sizes (numbers of informative loci) typical of this problem. Much of the efficiency deficit can be recovered, however, by restricting the allelic imbalance parameter estimate to a prespecified range, assuming that this parameter is in the prespecified range.
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.