ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Tree-based exploratory identification of predictive biomarkers in non-randomized data.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The idea of "stratified medicine" is an important driver of methodological research on the identification of predictive biomarkers. Most methods proposed so far for this purpose have been developed for the use on randomized data only. However, often data from clinical registries or non-randomized studies are the only available data source. For such data, methods for estimation of the average treatment effect are well established. Research on confounder adjustment when investigating the heterogeneity of treatment effects and the variables responsible for this is usually restricted to regression modelling. In this paper, we demonstrate how the predMOB, a tree-based method that specifically searches for predictive factors, can be combined with common strategies for confounder adjustment. In an extensive simulation study, we show that the proposed strategies allow for the correct identification of predictive factors in the presence of confounding. It is demonstrated that the most robust method is a combination of both covariate adjustment and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW). Applications to the German Breast Cancer Study Group (GBSG) trial 2 and the Acute Myeloid Leukemia Study Group (AMLSG) 16-10 study illustrate these conclusions.
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.