Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42337439›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Statistical inference after variable selection in Cox models: a neutral simulation study.

Lena Schemet, Sarah Friedrich-Welz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Lena SchemetDepartment of Mathematics, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Bavaria, 86159, Germany. lena.schemet@uni-a.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-2223-0591
Sarah Friedrich-WelzDepartment of Mathematics, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Bavaria, 86159, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0291-4378

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Choosing relevant predictors is central to the analysis of biomedical time-to-event data. Classical frequentist inference, however, presumes that the set of covariates is fixed in advance and does not account for data-driven variable selection. As a consequence, naive post-selection inference may be biased and misleading. In right-censored survival settings, these issues may be further exacerbated by the additional uncertainty induced by censoring. We investigate several inference procedures applied after variable selection for the coefficients of the Lasso and its extension, the adaptive Lasso, in the context of the Cox model. The methods considered include sample splitting, post-selection inference procedures that condition explicitly on the Lasso selection event, and the debiased Lasso. Because these methods address different inferential targets, we distinguish selected-submodel targets from full-model targets and interpret empirical coverage, interval width, power, and type I error accordingly. Their performance is examined in a neutral simulation study reflecting realistic covariate structures and censoring rates commonly encountered in biomedical applications. The primary focus is post-selection inference after Cox-Lasso variable selection, not a comprehensive benchmark of very-high-dimensional variable-selection performance. To complement the simulation results, we illustrate the practical behavior of these procedures in an applied example using a publicly available survival dataset.

Indexed as

Proportional Hazards ModelsAlgorithmsComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalSurvival AnalysisCox modelDebiased LassoLassoPost-selection inferenceSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID42337439
PMCPMC13289528

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.