ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025
Performance of Two-Phase Designs for the Time-to-Event Outcome and a Case Study Assessing the Relapse Risk Associated With B-ALL Subtypes.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo reduce costs in genomic studies of time-to-event phenotypes like survival, researchers often sequence a subset of samples from a larger cohort. This process usually involves two phases: first, collecting inexpensive variables from all samples, and second, selecting a subset for expensive measurements, for example, sequencing-based biomarkers. Common two-phase designs include nested case-control and case-cohort designs. Additional designs include sampling subjects based on follow-up time, like extreme case-control designs. Recently an optimal two-phase design using a maximum likelihood-based method was proposed, which could accommodate arbitrary sample selection in the second phase. However, direct comparisons of this optimal design with others in terms of power and computational cost is lacking.
methodsThis study performs a direct evaluation of typical two-phase designs, including Tao's optimal design, on type I error, power, effect size estimation, and computational time, using both simulated and real data sets.
resultsResults show that the optimal design had the highest power and accurate effect size estimation under the Cox regression model. Surprisingly, logistic regression achieved similar power with much lower computational cost than a more sophisticated method. The study further applied these methods to the MP2PRT study, reporting hazard ratios of cancer subtypes on relapse risk.
conclusionRecommendations for selecting two-phase designs and analysis methods are regarding power, bias of estimated effect size, and computational time.
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.