ArticleBiometrics2016
Identifying predictive markers for personalized treatment selection.
Article in Biometrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A SEQUENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR TREATMENT BY COVARIATE INTERACTIONS.Statistica Sinica · 2021Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personalized Medicine With Software.Frontiers in big data · 2021Article
- Individualized treatment effects with censored data via fully nonparametric Bayesian accelerated failure time models.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Variance components genetic association test for zero-inflated count outcomes.Genetic epidemiology · 2019Article
- [Subgroup identification based on the Logistic model].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018Article
- Pathway aggregation for survival prediction via multiple kernel learning.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- G9A performs important roles in the progression of breast cancer through upregulating its targets.Oncology letters · 2017Article
- What is the promise of personalised nutrition?Journal of nutritional scienceArticle
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
Abstract
It is now well recognized that the effectiveness and potential risk of a treatment often vary by patient subgroups. Although trial-and-error and one-size-fits-all approaches to treatment selection remain a common practice, much recent focus has been placed on individualized treatment selection based on patient information (La Thangue and Kerr, 2011; Ong et al., 2012). Genetic and molecular markers are becoming increasingly available to guide treatment selection for various diseases including HIV and breast cancer (Mallal et al., 2008; Zujewski and Kamin, 2008). In recent years, many statistical procedures for developing individualized treatment rules (ITRs) have been proposed. However, less focus has been given to efficient selection of predictive biomarkers for treatment selection. The standard Wald test for interactions between treatment and the set of markers of interest may not work well when the marker effects are nonlinear. Furthermore, interaction-based test is scale dependent and may fail to capture markers useful for predicting individualized treatment differences. In this article, we propose to overcome these difficulties by developing a kernel machine (KM) score test that can efficiently identify markers predictive of treatment difference. Simulation studies show that our proposed KM-based score test is more powerful than the Wald test when there is nonlinear effect among the predictors and when the outcome is binary with nonlinear link functions. Furthermore, when there is high-correlation among predictors and when the number of predictors is not small, our method also over-performs Wald test. The proposed method is illustrated with two randomized clinical trials.
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.