ArticleJournal of biometrics & biostatistics2012
Statistical Analysis of Patient-Specific Pathway Activities via Mixed Models.
Article in Journal of biometrics & biostatistics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robust prediction of anti-cancer drug sensitivity and sensitivity-specific biomarker.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the study of complex diseases, a major challenge is disease heterogeneity, where the dysregulation of different pathways often lead to similar disease phenotypes. As a result, a given pathway could be differentially expressed with respect to controls for some patients, but not for others. Therefore, to develop successful personalized treatment regime, in addition to identifying disease relevant pathways for the entire patient group, it's also important to test if a particular pathway is dysregulated for an individual patient. To this end, we compare pathway gene expression profile for a particular individual in the patient group to the "norm" (or standard) established by a group of control patients. We studied statistical analysis of patient-specific pathway activities under the mixed models framework. Using gene expression dataset with realistic correlation patterns, we showed the proposed hypothesis testing procedure had false positive rate (type I error) as expected. In addition, we illustrated the proposed methodology using a Type 2 Diabetes dataset. Our results showed a previously diabetes associated pathway was only differentially expressed (relative to the control group) in less than 30% of the diabetes patients, which provided an explanation for the moderate group level statistical significance seen in a previous study. This result also suggested targeting this particular pathway would likely be beneficial for only 30% of the patients. In addition to the case-control study we have illustrated, this model can be easily extended to handle more complex designs with additional covariates and multiple sources of variations. Moreover, the proposed model operates within a well-established statistical framework and can be implemented in common statistical packages.
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.