Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31510644›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

Model-based optimization of subgroup weights for survival analysis.

Jakob Richter, Katrin Madjar, Jörg Rahnenführer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Jakob RichterDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
Katrin MadjarDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
Jörg RahnenführerDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationTo obtain a reliable prediction model for a specific cancer subgroup or cohort is often difficult due to limited sample size and, in survival analysis, due to potentially high censoring rates. Sometimes similar data from other patient subgroups are available, e.g. from other clinical centers. Simple pooling of all subgroups can decrease the variance of the predicted parameters of the prediction models, but also increase the bias due to heterogeneity between the cohorts. A promising compromise is to identify those subgroups with a similar relationship between covariates and target variable and then include only these for model building.

resultsWe propose a subgroup-based weighted likelihood approach for survival prediction with high-dimensional genetic covariates. When predicting survival for a specific subgroup, for every other subgroup an individual weight determines the strength with which its observations enter into model building. MBO (model-based optimization) can be used to quickly find a good prediction model in the presence of a large number of hyperparameters. We use MBO to identify the best model for survival prediction of a specific subgroup by optimizing the weights for additional subgroups for a Cox model. The approach is evaluated on a set of lung cancer cohorts with gene expression measurements. The resulting models have competitive prediction quality, and they reflect the similarity of the corresponding cancer subgroups, with both weights close to 0 and close to 1 and medium weights. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: mlrMBO is implemented as an R-package and is freely available at http://github.com/mlr-org/mlrMBO.

Indexed as

Gene ExpressionLung NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisFemaleHumansLikelihood FunctionsMaleSample Size

Identifiers

PMID31510644
PMCPMC6612842

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.