ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2013
Estimation and selection of complex covariate effects in pooled nested case-control studies with heterogeneity.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2013. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of Nomograms to Predict Overall Survival and Cancer-Specific Survival in Patients With Pancreatic Adenosquamous Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Identification of homogeneous and heterogeneous variables in pooled cohort studies.Biometrics · 2015Article
- Powers of the likelihood ratio test and the correlation test using empirical bayes estimates for various shrinkages in population pharmacokinetics.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A major challenge in cancer epidemiologic studies, especially those of rare cancers, is observing enough cases. To address this, researchers often join forces by bringing multiple studies together to achieve large sample sizes, allowing for increased power in hypothesis testing, and improved efficiency in effect estimation. Combining studies, however, renders the analysis difficult owing to the presence of heterogeneity in the pooled data. In this article, motivated by a collaborative nested case-control (NCC) study of ovarian cancer in three cohorts from United States, Sweden, and Italy, we investigate the use of penalty regularized partial likelihood estimation in the context of pooled NCC studies to achieve two goals. First, we propose an adaptive group lasso (gLASSO) penalized approach to simultaneously identify important variables and estimate their effects. Second, we propose a composite agLASSO penalized approach to identify variables with heterogeneous effects. Both methods are readily implemented with the group coordinate gradient decent algorithm and shown to enjoy the oracle property. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our proposed approaches in finite samples under various heterogeneity settings, and apply them to the pooled ovarian cancer study.
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.