ArticleThe pharmacogenomics journal2016
Using local multiplicity to improve effect estimation from a hypothesis-generating pharmacogenetics study.
Article in The pharmacogenomics journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose a multiple estimation adjustment (MEA) method to correct effect overestimation due to selection bias from a hypothesis-generating study (HGS) in pharmacogenetics. MEA uses a hierarchical Bayesian approach to model individual effect estimates from maximal likelihood estimation (MLE) in a region jointly and shrinks them toward the regional effect. Unlike many methods that model a fixed selection scheme, MEA capitalizes on local multiplicity independent of selection. We compared mean square errors (MSEs) in simulated HGSs from naive MLE, MEA and a conditional likelihood adjustment (CLA) method that model threshold selection bias. We observed that MEA effectively reduced MSE from MLE on null effects with or without selection, and had a clear advantage over CLA on extreme MLE estimates from null effects under lenient threshold selection in small samples, which are common among 'top' associations from a pharmacogenetics HGS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25802090What 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.