Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30672015›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2019

Bayesian variable selection based on clinical relevance weights in small sample studies-Application to colon cancer.

Sandrine Boulet, Moreno Ursino, Peter Thall, Anne-Sophie Jannot, Sarah Zohar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Prior Elicitation for Use in Clinical Trial Design and Analysis: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sandrine BouletINSERM U1138, Team 22, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, University Paris Descartes, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9863-5466
Moreno UrsinoINSERM U1138, Team 22, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, University Paris Descartes, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5709-4322
Peter ThallDepartment of Biostatistics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Anne-Sophie JannotINSERM U1138, Team 22, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, University Paris Descartes, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.
Sarah ZoharINSERM U1138, Team 22, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, University Paris Descartes, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using clinical data to model the medical decisions behind sequential treatment actions raises methodological challenges. Physicians often have access to many covariates that may be used when making sequential treatment decisions for individual patients. Statistical variable selection methods may help finding which of these variables are used for this decision in everyday practice. When the sample size is not large, Bayesian variable selection methods can address this setting and allow for expert information to be incorporated into prior distributions. Motivated by clinical practice data involving repeated dose adaptation for Irinotecan in colorectal metastatic cancer, we propose a modification of the stochastic search variable selection (SSVS) method, which we call weight-based SSVS (WBS). We use clinical relevance weights elicited from physician experts to construct prior distributions, with the goal to identify the most influential toxicities and other covariates used for dose adjustment. We evaluate and compare the WBS model performance to the Lasso and SSVS through an extensive simulation study. The simulations show that WBS has better performance and lower rates of false positives and false negatives than the other methods but depends strongly on the covariate weights.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremDecision Support Systems, ClinicalColonic NeoplasmsComputer SimulationHumansSample SizeStochastic Processesclinical relevance weights elicitationinformative priorsrepeated measuresstochastic search variable selection

Identifiers

PMID30672015
PMCPMC6590366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.