Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39400113›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024

Robust variable selection methods with Cox model-a selective practical benchmark study.

Yunwei Zhang, Samuel Muller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Innovations in biomarker stratification for precision oncology.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026
    Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Yunwei ZhangSchool of Mathematics, Statistics, Chemistry and Physics, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch WA 6150, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2173-3185
Samuel MullerSchool of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, 12 Wally's Walk, Macquarie Park NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3087-8127

Funding

Australian Research Council Discovery Project 230101908
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advancement of biological and medical techniques, we can now obtain large amounts of high-dimensional omics data with censored survival information. This presents challenges in method development across various domains, particularly in variable selection. Given the inherently skewed distribution of the survival time outcome variable, robust variable selection methods offer potential solutions. Recently, there has been a focus on extending robust variable selection methods from linear regression models to survival models. However, despite these developments, robust methods are currently rarely used in practical applications, possibly due to a limited appreciation of their overall good performance. To address this gap, we conduct a selective review comparing the variable selection performance of twelve robust and non-robust penalised Cox models. Our study reveals the intricate relationship among covariates, survival outcomes, and modeling approaches, demonstrating how subtle variations can significantly impact the performance of methods considered. Based on our empirical research, we recommend the use of robust Cox models for variable selection in practice based on their superior performance in presence of outliers while maintaining good efficiency and accuracy when there are no outliers. This study provides valuable insights for method development and application, contributing to a better understanding of the relationship between correlated covariates and censored outcomes.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingProportional Hazards ModelsHumansCox modelpenalised Cox modelrobust variable selectionsurvival analysisvariable selection

Identifiers

PMID39400113
PMCPMC11472364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.