ArticlePloS one2020
Applying univariate vs. multivariate statistics to investigate therapeutic efficacy in (pre)clinical trials: A Monte Carlo simulation study on the example of a controlled preclinical neurotrauma trial.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age-Dependent Serum Volatilomics of Milk and Yogurt Intake: A Randomized Crossover Study in Healthy Young and Older Men.Journal of proteome research · 2023Trial
- Training and race-induced coordination of oxidative stress markers in racehorses: insights from multivariate and univariate analyses.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the possible relationship between skin microbiome and brain cognitive functions: a pilot EEG study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Molecular and translational biology of the blood-based VeriStrat® proteomic test used in cancer immunotherapy treatment guidance.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2023Article
- NAPE-PLD deletion in stress-TRAPed neurons results in an anxiogenic phenotype.Translational psychiatry · 2023Article
- Satisfactory results after endoscopic gluteus medius repair combined with selective gluteus maximus reflected tendon release for the treatment of a full-thickness tear of gluteus medius.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- A decade in review: use of data analytics within the biopharmaceutical sector.Current opinion in chemical engineering · 2021Review
- INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Co-Inference of Data Mislabelings Reveals Improved Models in Genomics and Breast Cancer Diagnostics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmall sample sizes combined with multiple correlated endpoints pose a major challenge in the statistical analysis of preclinical neurotrauma studies. The standard approach of applying univariate tests on individual response variables has the advantage of simplicity of interpretation, but it fails to account for the covariance/correlation in the data. In contrast, multivariate statistical techniques might more adequately capture the multi-dimensional pathophysiological pattern of neurotrauma and therefore provide increased sensitivity to detect treatment effects.
resultsWe systematically evaluated the performance of univariate ANOVA, Welch's ANOVA and linear mixed effects models versus the multivariate techniques, ANOVA on principal component scores and MANOVA tests by manipulating factors such as sample and effect size, normality and homogeneity of variance in computer simulations. Linear mixed effects models demonstrated the highest power when variance between groups was equal or variance ratio was 1:2. In contrast, Welch's ANOVA outperformed the remaining methods with extreme variance heterogeneity. However, power only reached acceptable levels of 80% in the case of large simulated effect sizes and at least 20 measurements per group or moderate effects with at least 40 replicates per group. In addition, we evaluated the capacity of the ordination techniques, principal component analysis (PCA), redundancy analysis (RDA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) to capture patterns of treatment effects without formal hypothesis testing. While LDA suffered from a high false positive rate due to multicollinearity, PCA, RDA, and PLS-DA were robust and PLS-DA outperformed PCA and RDA in capturing a true treatment effect pattern.
conclusionsMultivariate tests do not provide an appreciable increase in power compared to univariate techniques to detect group differences in preclinical studies. However, PLS-DA seems to be a useful ordination technique to explore treatment effect patterns without formal hypothesis testing.
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.