ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023
Favoring the hierarchical constraint in penalized survival models for randomized trials in precision medicine.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe research of biomarker-treatment interactions is commonly investigated in randomized clinical trials (RCT) for improving medicine precision. The hierarchical interaction constraint states that an interaction should only be in a model if its main effects are also in the model. However, this constraint is not guaranteed in the standard penalized statistical approaches. We aimed to find a compromise for high-dimensional data between the need for sparse model selection and the need for the hierarchical constraint.
resultsTo favor the property of the hierarchical interaction constraint, we proposed to create groups composed of the biomarker main effect and its interaction with treatment and to perform the bi-level selection on these groups. We proposed two weighting approaches (Single Wald (SW) and likelihood ratio test (LRT)) for the adaptive lasso method. The selection performance of these two approaches is compared to alternative lasso extensions (adaptive lasso with ridge-based weights, composite Minimax Concave Penalty, group exponential lasso and Sparse Group Lasso) through a simulation study. A RCT (NSABP B-31) randomizing 1574 patients (431 events) with early breast cancer aiming to evaluate the effect of adjuvant trastuzumab on distant-recurrence free survival with expression data from 462 genes measured in the tumour will serve for illustration. The simulation study illustrates that the adaptive lasso LRT and SW, and the group exponential lasso favored the hierarchical interaction constraint. Overall, in the alternative scenarios, they had the best balance of false discovery and false negative rates for the main effects of the selected interactions. For NSABP B-31, 12 gene-treatment interactions were identified more than 20% by the different methods. Among them, the adaptive lasso (SW) approach offered the best trade-off between a high number of selected gene-treatment interactions and a high proportion of selection of both the gene-treatment interaction and its main effect.
conclusionsAdaptive lasso with Single Wald and likelihood ratio test weighting and the group exponential lasso approaches outperformed their competitors in favoring the hierarchical constraint of the biomarker-treatment interaction. However, the performance of the methods tends to decrease in the presence of prognostic biomarkers.
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.