ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2026
Identifying the Best Predictive Biomarker in Pharmacogenomics Through Multiple Comparisons With the Best.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single gene mutations are increasingly being adopted as clinical biomarkers for the optimal application of various therapeutic areas (such as cancer and cardiovascular disease). A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), the most common type of genetic variation in human populations, can affect the abundance and function of gene products at the molecular level. In practice, a single-predictor model is usually built using the best single-SNP (or single-gene) biomarker with the most significant drug-SNP (or drug-gene) association in randomized clinical trials. Current statistical methods for the best single-SNP biomarker selection rely on a variety of ranking procedures. However, these existing approaches (i) cannot accurately distinguish drug-SNP interaction effects (i.e., predictive effects) from SNP main effects (i.e., prognostic effects); (ii) do not necessarily yield the true ordering or provide a confidence interval for ranking. In this paper, we propose a novel method called Multiple comparisons with the best using Marginal Means (3M). Specifically, 3M first calculates unbiased estimates of SNPs' predictive effects using marginal means (i.e., least squares means). To select the best predictive SNP (i.e., SNP with the largest unbiased drug-SNP interaction effect), 3M uses a nonparametric bootstrap method to construct constrained simultaneous confidence intervals under the framework of Multiple Comparisons with the Best. Simulation studies demonstrate that our proposed method is more reliable in distinguishing predictive effects from prognostic effects, and thus more powerful to identify the true best predictive SNP than existing methods. Finally, we applied our method to the IMPROVE-IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytroin Efficacy International Trial) pharmacogenomics genome-wide association study (GWAS) data to search for the best predictive SNP across the genome. One single best predictive SNP rs114462013 (STAG1) on chromosome 3 was detected, with the association previously identified in the literature.
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.