ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2016
Study design in high-dimensional classification analysis.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2016. 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.
- Networks of worry-towards a connectivity-based signature of late-life worry using higher criticism.Translational psychiatry · 2021Article
- Selecting Multiple Biomarker Subsets with Similarly Effective Binary Classification Performances.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018Article
- RIFS: a randomly restarted incremental feature selection algorithm.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in high throughput technology have accelerated the use of hundreds to millions of biomarkers to construct classifiers that partition patients into different clinical conditions. Prior to classifier development in actual studies, a critical need is to determine the sample size required to reach a specified classification precision. We develop a systematic approach for sample size determination in high-dimensional (large [Formula: see text] small [Formula: see text]) classification analysis. Our method utilizes the probability of correct classification (PCC) as the optimization objective function and incorporates the higher criticism thresholding procedure for classifier development. Further, we derive the theoretical bound of maximal PCC gain from feature augmentation (e.g. when molecular and clinical predictors are combined in classifier development). Our methods are motivated and illustrated by a study using proteomics markers to classify post-kidney transplantation patients into stable and rejecting classes.
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.