ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
Promoting similarity of model sparsity structures in integrative analysis of cancer genetic data.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- An integrative sparse boosting analysis of cancer genomic commonality and difference.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020Article
- Robust semiparametric gene-environment interaction analysis using sparse boosting.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Penalized integrative semiparametric interaction analysis for multiple genetic datasets.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Identification of cancer omics commonality and difference via community fusion.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Overlapping clustering of gene expression data using penalized weighted normalized cut.Genetic epidemiology · 2018Article
- An Update on Statistical Boosting in Biomedicine.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2017Review
- Integrative Interaction Analysis using Threshold Gradient Directed Regularization.Applied stochastic models in business and industryArticle
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
In profiling studies, the analysis of a single dataset often leads to unsatisfactory results because of the small sample size. Multi-dataset analysis utilizes information of multiple independent datasets and outperforms single-dataset analysis. Among the available multi-dataset analysis methods, integrative analysis methods aggregate and analyze raw data and outperform meta-analysis methods, which analyze multiple datasets separately and then pool summary statistics. In this study, we conduct integrative analysis and marker selection under the heterogeneity structure, which allows different datasets to have overlapping but not necessarily identical sets of markers. Under certain scenarios, it is reasonable to expect some similarity of identified marker sets - or equivalently, similarity of model sparsity structures - across multiple datasets. However, the existing methods do not have a mechanism to explicitly promote such similarity. To tackle this problem, we develop a sparse boosting method. This method uses a BIC/HDBIC criterion to select weak learners in boosting and encourages sparsity. A new penalty is introduced to promote the similarity of model sparsity structures across datasets. The proposed method has a intuitive formulation and is broadly applicable and computationally affordable. In numerical studies, we analyze right censored survival data under the accelerated failure time model. Simulation shows that the proposed method outperforms alternative boosting and penalization methods with more accurate marker identification. The analysis of three breast cancer prognosis datasets shows that the proposed method can identify marker sets with increased similarity across datasets and improved prediction performance. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.