Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40497522›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

Consistency-Based Approach to Adjust for Multiplicity in Confirmatory Subgroup Analysis.

Qiqi Deng, Qian Li, Naitee Ting, Feng Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Qiqi DengBiostatistics, Moderna, Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Qian LiBiostatistics, StatsVita, LLC, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Naitee TingBiostatistics, StatsVita, LLC, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9168-297X
Feng YuSchool of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0947-6809

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advance of medical sciences and better understanding of human biological systems, the next generation of treatment has shifted toward personalized medicine. It is expected that personalized medicine, such as molecularly targeted anti-cancer agents, is more efficacious in marker-positive patients, while marker-negative patients may or may not benefit from the treatment. Due to technology limitations in marker identification and incomplete understanding of the role of biomarkers in treatment effect, it is possible that the marker is not predictive. Therefore, it is often of interest to test the treatment on the overall population as well as the biomarker-positive subgroup. Testing both the overall population and the biomarker-positive subgroup introduces a multiplicity issue and leads to type I error inflation if not adjusted appropriately. The available multiplicity adjustment procedures may not consider the logic needed in the two tests. A new method is proposed by applying the logical connections between the two hypothesis tests, and arbitrages between different rejection regions to make the testing strategy not only powerful but also sensible.

Indexed as

BiomarkersPrecision MedicineComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalBiomarkersbiomarkerenrichmentmultiplicity adjustmentsubgrouptype I error inflation

Identifiers

PMID40497522
PMCPMC12153250

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.