ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2024
Modeling biomarker variability in joint analysis of longitudinal and time-to-event data.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Joint Modeling of Longitudinal and Survival Data in Public Health and Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Dynamic potassium variability (K-CV) as an independent predictor of mortality in maintenance hemodialysis.Renal failure · 2026Article
- A Bayesian Location-Scale Joint Model for Time-To-Event and Multivariate Longitudinal Data With Association Based on Within-Individual Variability.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- JointLIME: An interpretation method for machine learning survival models with endogenous time-varying covariates in credit scoring.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The role of visit-to-visit variability of a biomarker in predicting related disease has been recognized in medical science. Existing measures of biological variability are criticized for being entangled with random variability resulted from measurement error or being unreliable due to limited measurements per individual. In this article, we propose a new measure to quantify the biological variability of a biomarker by evaluating the fluctuation of each individual-specific trajectory behind longitudinal measurements. Given a mixed-effects model for longitudinal data with the mean function over time specified by cubic splines, our proposed variability measure can be mathematically expressed as a quadratic form of random effects. A Cox model is assumed for time-to-event data by incorporating the defined variability as well as the current level of the underlying longitudinal trajectory as covariates, which, together with the longitudinal model, constitutes the joint modeling framework in this article. Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators are established for the present joint model. Estimation is implemented via an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm with fully exponential Laplace approximation used in E-step to reduce the computation burden due to the increase of the random effects dimension. Simulation studies are conducted to reveal the advantage of the proposed method over the two-stage method, as well as a simpler joint modeling approach which does not take into account biomarker variability. Finally, we apply our model to investigate the effect of systolic blood pressure variability on cardiovascular events in the Medical Research Council elderly trial, which is also the motivating example for this article.
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.