Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31312252›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2019

A Simulation Study Comparing Different Statistical Approaches for the Identification of Predictive Biomarkers.

Bernhard Haller, Kurt Ulm, Alexander Hapfelmeier

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Bernhard HallerTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Institute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9723-393X
Kurt UlmTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Institute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Alexander HapfelmeierTechnical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Institute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6765-6352

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identification of relevant biomarkers that are associated with a treatment effect is one requirement for adequate treatment stratification and consequently to improve health care by administering the best available treatment to an individual patient. Various statistical approaches were proposed that allow assessing the interaction between a continuous covariate and treatment. Nevertheless, categorization of a continuous covariate, e.g., by splitting the data at the observed median value, appears to be very prevalent in practice. In this article, we present a simulation study considering data as observed in a randomized clinical trial with a time-to-event outcome performed to compare properties of such approaches, namely, Cox regression with linear interaction, Multivariable Fractional Polynomials for Interaction (MFPI), Local Partial-Likelihood Bootstrap (LPLB), and the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) method, and of strategies based on categorization of continuous covariates (splitting the covariate at the median, splitting at quartiles, and using an "optimal" split by maximizing a corresponding test statistic). In different scenarios with no interactions, linear interactions or nonlinear interactions, type I error probability and the power for detection of a true covariate-treatment interaction were estimated. The Cox regression approach was more efficient than the other methods for scenarios with monotonous interactions, especially when the number of observed events was small to moderate. When patterns of the biomarker-treatment interaction effect were more complex, MFPI and LPLB performed well compared to the other approaches. Categorization of data generally led to a loss of power, but for very complex patterns, splitting the data into multiple categories might help to explore the nature of the interaction effect. Consequently, we recommend application of statistical methods developed for assessment of interactions between continuous biomarkers and treatment instead of arbitrary or data-driven categorization of continuous covariates.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, StatisticalAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansMedical InformaticsMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasmsProbabilityProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeTreatment OutcomeBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID31312252
PMCPMC6595324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.