ArticleStatistics in medicine2014
Comparison of statistics in association tests of genetic markers for survival outcomes.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- On Path to Informing Hierarchy of Eplet Mismatches as Determinants of Kidney Transplant Loss.Kidney international reports · 2021Article
- Accurate computation of survival statistics in genome-wide studies.PLoS computational biology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computationally efficient statistical tests are needed in association testing of large scale genetic markers for survival outcomes. In this study, we explore several test statistics based on the Cox proportional hazards model for survival data. First, we consider the classical partial likelihood-based Wald and score tests. A revised way to compute the score statistics is explored to improve the computational efficiency. Next, we propose a Cox-Snell residual-based score test, which allows us to handle the controlling variables more conveniently. We also illustrated the incorporation of these three tests into a permutation procedure to adjust for the multiple testing. In addition, we examine a simulation-based approach proposed by Lin (2005) to adjust for multiple testing. We presented the comparison of these four statistics in terms of type I error, power, family-wise error rate, and computational efficiency under various scenarios via extensive simulation.
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.