ArticleCancer epidemiology2018
Recommendation to use exact P-values in biomarker discovery research in place of approximate P-values.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Biomarkers of Chronic Pancreatitis: A systematic literature review.Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2021Pooled it
- Development of a Novel Flavored Goat Cheese withFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020Review
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
backgroundBiomarker candidates are often ranked using P-values. Standard P-value calculations use normal or logit-normal approximations, which may not be correct for small P-values and small sample sizes common in discovery research.
methodsWe compared exact P-values, correct by definition, with logit-normal approximations in a simulated study of 40 cases and 160 controls. The key measure of biomarker performance was sensitivity at 90% specificity. Data for 3000 uninformative false markers and 30 informative true markers were generated randomly. We also analyzed real data for 2371 plasma protein markers measured in 121 breast cancer cases and 121 controls.
resultsIn our simulation, using the same discovery criterion, exact P-values led to discovery of 24 true and 82 false biomarkers, while logit-normal approximate P-values yielded 20 true and 106 false biomarkers. The estimated true discovery rate was substantially off for approximate P-values: logit-normal estimated 42 but found 20. The exact method estimated 22, very close to 24, which was the actual number of true discoveries. Although these results are based on one specific simulation, qualitatively similar results were obtained from 10 random repetitions. With real data, ranking candidate biomarkers by exact P-values, versus approximate P-values, resulted in a very different ordering of these markers.
conclusionsExact P-values, which correspond to permutation tests with non-parametric rank statistics such as empirical ROC statistics, are preferred over approximate P-values. Approximate P-values can lead to inappropriate biomarker selection rules and incorrect conclusions. IMPACT: Exact P-values in place of approximate P-values in discovery research may improve the yield of biomarkers that validate clinically.
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.