ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
A plea for taking all available clinical information into account when assessing the predictive value of omics data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multivariable prognostic modelling to improve prediction of colorectal cancer recurrence: the PROSPeCT trial.European radiology · 2024Trial
- Integration of clinical and proteomic risk factors enhances prognostic modelling of incident vascular complications in type 2 diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
- The current state of imaging biomarker development and evaluation.The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
- A Weibull mixture cure frailty model for high-dimensional covariates.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of prognostic models to improve prediction of metastasis in patients following potentially curative treatment for primary colorectal cancer: the PROSPECT trial.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Observational
- Does combining numerous data types in multi-omics data improve or hinder performance in survival prediction? Insights from a large-scale benchmark study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Statistical analysis of high-dimensional biomedical data: a gentle introduction to analytical goals, common approaches and challenges.BMC medicine · 2023Review
- Optimal microRNA Sequencing Depth to Predict Cancer Patient Survival with Random Forest and Cox Models.Genes · 2022Article
- Article
- Challenges in translational machine learning.Human genetics · 2022Review
- Ten quick tips for biomarker discovery and validation analyses using machine learning.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Why did European Radiology reject my radiomic biomarker paper? How to correctly evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting.European radiology · 2021Review
- Time to reality check the promises of machine learning-powered precision medicine.The Lancet. Digital health · 2020Article
- Differential MicroRNA Signatures in the Pathogenesis of Barrett's Esophagus.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOmics data can be very informative in survival analysis and may improve the prognostic ability of classical models based on clinical risk factors for various diseases, for example breast cancer. Recent research has focused on integrating omics and clinical data, yet has often ignored the need for appropriate model building for clinical variables. Medical literature on classical prognostic scores, as well as biostatistical literature on appropriate model selection strategies for low dimensional (clinical) data, are often ignored in the context of omics research. The goal of this paper is to fill this methodological gap by investigating the added predictive value of gene expression data for models using varying amounts of clinical information.
methodsWe analyze two data sets from the field of survival prognosis of breast cancer patients. First, we construct several proportional hazards prediction models using varying amounts of clinical information based on established medical knowledge. These models are then used as a starting point (i.e. included as a clinical offset) for identifying informative gene expression variables using resampling procedures and penalized regression approaches (model based boosting and the LASSO). In order to assess the added predictive value of the gene signatures, measures of prediction accuracy and separation are examined on a validation data set for the clinical models and the models that combine the two sources of information.
resultsFor one data set, we do not find any substantial added predictive value of the omics data when compared to clinical models. On the second data set, we identify a noticeable added predictive value, however only for scenarios where little or no clinical information is included in the modeling process. We find that including more clinical information can lead to a smaller number of selected omics predictors.
conclusionsNew research using omics data should include all available established medical knowledge in order to allow an adequate evaluation of the added predictive value of omics data. Including all relevant clinical information in the analysis might also lead to more parsimonious models. The developed procedure to assess the predictive value of the omics data can be readily applied to other scenarios.
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.