ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Gene set analysis for time-to-event outcome: comparison of a new approach based on the generalized Berk-Jones statistic with existing methods in presence of intra gene-set correlation.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
Gene set analysis evaluates the collective impact of groups of genes on an outcome of interest, such as disease occurrence. By incorporating biological knowledge through predefined gene sets, this approach enhances the interpretability of results and improves statistical power compared with gene-wise analyses. In the context of time-to-event data, existing methods are limited and fail to account for potentially strong correlations within gene sets. Given the strong performance of the Generalized Berk-Jones (GBJ) statistic, which effectively incorporates correlation within the test statistic, we adapted this method to the time-to-event framework using a Cox model. We then compared its performance with established methods, including the Cauchy, Harmonic Mean, Wald test, global test, and global boost test. We further benchmarked these methods in two different real-world datasets: gliomas and breast cancer. Our proposed method, sGBJ, shows an overcontrol of Type I error, leading to reduced statistical power compared with other methods in numerical studies particularly when the number of genes is greater than or equal to the number of observations. The Wald test and global boost test generally exhibited the highest power, except in very high-correlation settings for the global boost test, while the Wald test could not adjust for confounders in current implementations.
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.