Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23281681›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2012

Statistical aspects of omics data analysis using the random compound covariate.

Pei-Fang Su, Xi Chen, Heidi Chen, Yu Shyr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Pei-Fang SuCenter for Quantitative Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Xi Chen
Heidi Chen
Yu Shyr

Funding

Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment Research ProgramP30CA068485 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MATTHEW J TYSKA · 1995 to 2026
$172.8M
TISSUE CoreP50CA098131 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI PARK, BEN HO, PIETENPOL, JENNIFER A · 2003 to 2024
$48.7M
Understanding and Controlling p120 Dysfunction in CRCP50CA095103 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI COFFEY, ROBERT J. · 2002 to 2017
$33.6M
TARGETING NOTCH 3 IN LUNG CANCERP50CA090949 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MASSION, PIERRE P. · 2001 to 2011
$24.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA068485NCI NIH HHS P50 CA090949NCI NIH HHS P50 CA095103NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDealing with high dimensional markers, such as gene expression data obtained using microarray chip technology or genomics studies, is a key challenge because the numbers of features greatly exceeds the number of biological samples. After selecting biologically relevant genes, how to summarize the expression of selected genes and then further build predicted model is an important issue in medical applications. One intuitive method of addressing this challenge assigns different weights to different features, subsequently combining this information into a single score, named the compound covariate. Investigators commonly employ this score to assess whether an association exists between the compound covariate and clinical outcomes adjusted for baseline covariates. However, we found that some clinical papers concerned with such analysis report bias p-values based on flawed compound covariate in their training data set.

resultsWe correct this flaw in the analysis and we also propose treating the compound score as a random covariate, to achieve more appropriate results and significantly improve study power for survival outcomes. With this proposed method, we thoroughly assess the performance of two commonly used estimated gene weights through simulation studies. When the sample size is 100, and censoring rates are 50%, 30%, and 10%, power is increased by 10.6%, 3.5%, and 0.4%, respectively, by treating the compound score as a random covariate rather than a fixed covariate. Finally, we assess our proposed method using two publicly available microarray data sets.

conclusionIn this article, we correct this flaw in the analysis and the propose method, treating the compound score as a random covariate, can achieve more appropriate results and improve study power for survival outcomes.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCell Line, TumorComputer SimulationFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsHumansLung NeoplasmsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisProportional Hazards ModelsSample Size

Identifiers

PMID23281681
PMCPMC3524312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.