首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Wiley-Blackwell Online Open >Identification of biomarker‐by‐treatment interactions in randomized clinical trials with survival outcomes and high‐dimensional spaces
【2h】

Identification of biomarker‐by‐treatment interactions in randomized clinical trials with survival outcomes and high‐dimensional spaces

机译:在具有生存结果和高维空间的随机临床试验中鉴定生物标志物与治疗的相互作用

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Stratified medicine seeks to identify biomarkers or parsimonious gene signatures distinguishing patients that will benefit most from a targeted treatment. We evaluated 12 approaches in high‐dimensional Cox models in randomized clinical trials: penalization of the biomarker main effects and biomarker‐by‐treatment interactions (full‐lasso, three kinds of adaptive lasso, ridge+lasso and group‐lasso); dimensionality reduction of the main effect matrix via linear combinations (PCA+lasso (where PCA is principal components analysis) or PLS+lasso (where PLS is partial least squares)); penalization of modified covariates or of the arm‐specific biomarker effects (two‐I model); gradient boosting; and univariate approach with control of multiple testing. We compared these methods via simulations, evaluating their selection abilities in null and alternative scenarios. We varied the number of biomarkers, of nonnull main effects and true biomarker‐by‐treatment interactions. We also proposed a novel measure evaluating the interaction strength of the developed gene signatures. In the null scenarios, the group‐lasso, two‐I model, and gradient boosting performed poorly in the presence of nonnull main effects, and performed well in alternative scenarios with also high interaction strength. The adaptive lasso with grouped weights was too conservative. The modified covariates, PCA+lasso, PLS+lasso, and ridge+lasso performed moderately. The full‐lasso and adaptive lassos performed well, with the exception of the full‐lasso in the presence of only nonnull main effects. The univariate approach performed poorly in alternative scenarios. We also illustrate the methods using gene expression data from 614 breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.
机译:分层医学试图识别生物标志物或简约的基因标志,以区分将从靶向治疗中受益最多的患者。我们在随机临床试验中评估了高维Cox模型中的12种方法:惩罚生物标志物的主要作用和生物标志物之间的相互作用(全套索,三种自适应套索,岭+套索和组套索);通过线性组合(PCA +套索(其中PCA是主成分分析)或PLS +套索(其中PLS是部分最小二乘))减小主效应矩阵的维数;修改协变量或特定于手臂的生物标志物效应的罚分(two-I模型);梯度增强单变量方法,可以控制多个测试。我们通过仿真比较了这些方法,评估了它们在空和替代方案中的选择能力。我们改变了生物标志物的数量,非无效主效应和真正的生物标志物-治疗相互作用。我们还提出了一种新的方法来评估已开发的基因签名的相互作用强度。在无效方案中,group-lasso,two-I模型和梯度增强在存在非无效主效应的情况下表现不佳,在交互强度也很高的替代方案中表现良好。具有分组权重的自适应套索过于保守。修改后的协变量PCA + lasso,PLS + lasso和ridge + lasso表现中等。完全套索和自适应套索表现良好,除了仅存在非零主效应的完全套索之外。单变量方法在替代方案中效果较差。我们还说明了使用来自614例接受辅助化疗的乳腺癌患者的基因表达数据的方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号