Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31340753›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

A plea for taking all available clinical information into account when assessing the predictive value of omics data.

Alexander Volkmann, Riccardo De Bin, Willi Sauerbrei, Anne-Laure Boulesteix

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A Weibull mixture cure frailty model for high-dimensional covariates.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Differential MicroRNA Signatures in the Pathogenesis of Barrett's Esophagus.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Alexander VolkmannInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany. alexander.volkmann@hu-berlin.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5028-8098
Riccardo De BinDepartment of Mathematics, University of Oslo, Moltke Moes vei 35, Oslo, 0851, Norway.
Willi SauerbreiInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Straße 26, Freiburg, 79104, Germany.
Anne-Laure BoulesteixInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalSurvival AnalysisBreast NeoplasmsDatasets as TopicFemaleGene ExpressionGenomicsHumansRisk FactorsCox regressionData integrationModel building

Identifiers

PMID31340753
PMCPMC6657034

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.