ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2018
Combined Performance of Screening and Variable Selection Methods in Ultra-High Dimensional Data in Predicting Time-To-Event Outcomes.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of local recurrence in cohorts of head and neck cancer patients after intensity-modulated radiation therapy based on CT radiomics: A double-center observation study.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Prolonged Length of Stay in Older Patients with Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Study Using XGBoost with SHAP Interpretation.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- A Two-Step Variable Selection Strategy for Multiply Imputed Survival Data Using Penalized Cox Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prediction of Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification Based on A Nonlinear Transformation Stacking Learning Strategy.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Ketosis-Prone Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Among Patients Newly Diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2023Article
- Article
- Penalized weighted proportional hazards model for robust variable selection and outlier detection.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- A 4-gene signature predicts prognosis of uterine serous carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- Developing and Validating Risk Assessment Models of Clinical Outcomes in Modern Oncology.JCO precision oncology · 2019Article
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
backgroundBuilding prognostic models of clinical outcomes is an increasingly important research task and will remain a vital area in genomic medicine. Prognostic models of clinical outcomes are usually built and validated utilizing variable selection methods and machine learning tools. The challenges, however, in ultra-high dimensional space are not only to reduce the dimensionality of the data, but also to retain the important variables which predict the outcome. Screening approaches, such as the sure independence screening (SIS), iterative SIS (ISIS) and principled SIS (PSIS) have been developed to overcome the challenge of high dimensionality. We are interested in identifying important single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and integrating them into a validated prognostic model of overall survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. While the abovementioned variable selection approaches have theoretical justification in selecting SNPs, the comparison and the performance of these combined methods in predicting time-to-event outcomes have not been previously studied in ultra-high dimensional space with hundreds of thousands of variables.
methodsWe conducted a series of simulations to compare the performance of different combinations of variable selection approaches and classification trees, such as the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (ALASSO) and random survival forest (RSF), in ultra-high dimensional setting data for the purpose of developing prognostic models for a time-to-event outcome that is subject to censoring. The variable selection methods were evaluated for discrimination (Harrell's concordance statistic), calibration and overall performance. In addition, we applied these approaches to 498,081 SNPs from 623 Caucasian patients with prostate cancer.
resultsWhen n=300, ISIS-LASSO and ISIS-ALASSO chose all the informative variables which resulted in the highest Harrell's c-index (>0.80). On the other hand, with a small sample size (n=150), ALASSO performed better than any other combinations as demonstrated by the highest c-index and/or overall performance, although there was evidence of overfitting. In analyzing the prostate cancer data, ISIS-ALASSO, SIS-LASSO, and SIS-ALASSO combinations achieved the highest discrimination with c-index of 0.67.
conclusionsChoosing the appropriate variable selection method for training a model is a critical step in developing a robust prognostic model. Based on the simulation studies, the effective use of ALASSO or a combination of methods, such as ISIS-LASSO and ISIS-ALASSO, allows both for the development of prognostic models with high predictive accuracy and a low risk of overfitting assuming moderate sample sizes.
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.