ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2022
New weighting methods when cases are only a subset of events in a nested case-control study.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technology addiction as a predictor of visual problems in early adolescents: a multicentre case-control study.Primary health care research & development · 2026Article
- Building absolute breast cancer risk prediction models for women treated with chest radiation for Hodgkin lymphoma.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2025Article
- Weighted metrics are required when evaluating the performance of prediction models in nested case-control studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nested case control (NCC) is a sampling method widely used for developing and evaluating risk models with expensive biomarkers on large prospective cohort studies. In a typical NCC design, biomarker values are obtained on a subcohort, where cases consist of all the events (subjects who experience the event during the follow-up). However, when the number of events is not small, due to the cost and limited availability of biospecimen, one may select only a subset of events as cases. We refer to such a variation as the untypical NCC. Unfortunately, existing inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimators for the untypical NCC are biased, and they only focus on relative risk parameters under the proportional hazards (PH) model. In this manuscript, we propose new weighting methods that produce consistent IPW estimators for not only relative risk parameters but also several metrics that evaluate a risk model's predictive performance. We also provide the inference procedure via perturbation resampling, which captures all the variance and between-subject covariance induced by the sampling processes for both case and control selections. In addition, our methods are not limited to the PH model, and they can be applied to the time-specific generalized linear model. Under the typical NCC design, our new weights are equivalent to the weight proposed by Samuelsen; under the untypical NCC, the IPW estimators using our weights have smaller bias and variance than the existing methods. We will demonstrate this improved performance via both analytical and numerical investigations.
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.