ArticleLifetime data analysis2018
Two-phase outcome-dependent studies for failure times and testing for effects of expensive covariates.
Article in Lifetime data analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Famine Exposure during Early Life and Risk of Cancer in Adulthood: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2023Pooled it
- Gradient boosting machine for survival prediction in studies with general failure-time outcome-dependent sampling design.Lifetime data analysis · 2026Article
- Article
- Performance of Two-Phase Designs for the Time-to-Event Outcome and a Case Study Assessing the Relapse Risk Associated With B-ALL Subtypes.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Article
- A novel age-informed approach for genetic association analysis in Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2021Article
- Two-phase analysis and study design for survival models with error-prone exposures.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020Article
- Errors in multiple variables in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cohort and electronic health record data: statistical challenges and opportunities.Statistical communications in infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Optimal Designs of Two-Phase Studies.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2020Article
- Robust Score Tests With Missing Data in Genomics Studies.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2019Article
- Two-phase designs for joint quantitative-trait-dependent and genotype-dependent sampling in post-GWAS regional sequencing.Genetic epidemiology · 2018Article
- Special issue dedicated to Jack Kalbfleisch.Lifetime data analysis · 2018Article
- Discussion of the Paper by R. L. Prentice and Y. Huang - Optimal Designs and Efficient Inference for Biomarker Studies.Statistical theory and related fields · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two- or multi-phase study designs are often used in settings involving failure times. In most studies, whether or not certain covariates are measured on an individual depends on their failure time and status. For example, when failures are rare, case-cohort or case-control designs are used to increase the number of failures relative to a random sample of the same size. Another scenario is where certain covariates are expensive to measure, so they are obtained only for selected individuals in a cohort. This paper considers such situations and focuses on cases where we wish to test hypotheses of no association between failure time and expensive covariates. Efficient score tests based on maximum likelihood are developed and shown to have a simple form for a wide class of models and sampling designs. Some numerical comparisons of study designs are presented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27900633What 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.