Dataset Information

The Use of Covariates and Random Effects in Evaluating Predictive Biomarkers Under a Potential Outcome Framework.

ABSTRACT: Predictive or treatment selection biomarkers are usually evaluated in a subgroup or regression analysis with focus on the treatment-by-marker interaction. Under a potential outcome framework (Huang, Gilbert and Janes [Biometrics68 (2012) 687-696]), a predictive biomarker is considered a predictor for a desirable treatment benefit (defined by comparing potential outcomes for different treatments) and evaluated using familiar concepts in prediction and classification. However, the desired treatment benefit is un-observable because each patient can receive only one treatment in a typical study. Huang et al. overcome this problem by assuming monotonicity of potential outcomes, with one treatment dominating the other in all patients. Motivated by an HIV example that appears to violate the monotonicity assumption, we propose a different approach based on covariates and random effects for evaluating predictive biomarkers under the potential outcome framework. Under the proposed approach, the parameters of interest can be identified by assuming conditional independence of potential outcomes given observed covariates, and a sensitivity analysis can be performed by incorporating an unobserved random effect that accounts for any residual dependence. Application of this approach to the motivating example shows that baseline viral load and CD4 cell count are both useful as predictive biomarkers for choosing antiretroviral drugs for treatment-naive patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4714717 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Use of Covariates and Random Effects in Evaluating Predictive Biomarkers Under a Potential Outcome Framework.

Zhang Zhiwei Z Nie Lei L Soon Guoxing G Liu Aiyi A

The annals of applied statistics 20141219 4

Predictive or treatment selection biomarkers are usually evaluated in a subgroup or regression analysis with focus on the treatment-by-marker interaction. Under a potential outcome framework (Huang, Gilbert and Janes [<i>Biometrics</i><b>68</b> (2012) 687-696]), a predictive biomarker is considered a predictor for a desirable treatment benefit (defined by comparing potential outcomes for different treatments) and evaluated using familiar concepts in prediction and classification. However, the de ...[more]

PMID: 26779295

Similar Datasets

Project description:Random forest and similar Machine Learning techniques are already used to generate spatial predictions, but spatial location of points (geography) is often ignored in the modeling process. Spatial auto-correlation, especially if still existent in the cross-validation residuals, indicates that the predictions are maybe biased, and this is suboptimal. This paper presents a random forest for spatial predictions framework (RFsp) where buffer distances from observation points are used as explanatory variables, thus incorporating geographical proximity effects into the prediction process. The RFsp framework is illustrated with examples that use textbook datasets and apply spatial and spatio-temporal prediction to numeric, binary, categorical, multivariate and spatiotemporal variables. Performance of the RFsp framework is compared with the state-of-the-art kriging techniques using fivefold cross-validation with refitting. The results show that RFsp can obtain equally accurate and unbiased predictions as different versions of kriging. Advantages of using RFsp over kriging are that it needs no rigid statistical assumptions about the distribution and stationarity of the target variable, it is more flexible towards incorporating, combining and extending covariates of different types, and it possibly yields more informative maps characterizing the prediction error. RFsp appears to be especially attractive for building multivariate spatial prediction models that can be used as "knowledge engines" in various geoscience fields. Some disadvantages of RFsp are the exponentially growing computational intensity with increase of calibration data and covariates and the high sensitivity of predictions to input data quality. The key to the success of the RFsp framework might be the training data quality-especially quality of spatial sampling (to minimize extrapolation problems and any type of bias in data), and quality of model validation (to ensure that accuracy is not effected by overfitting). For many data sets, especially those with lower number of points and covariates and close-to-linear relationships, model-based geostatistics can still lead to more accurate predictions than RFsp.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Choosing the most performing method in terms of outcome prediction or variables selection is a recurring problem in prognosis studies, leading to many publications on methods comparison. But some aspects have received little attention. First, most comparison studies treat prediction performance and variable selection aspects separately. Second, methods are either compared within a binary outcome setting (where we want to predict whether the readmission will occur within an arbitrarily chosen delay or not) or within a survival analysis setting (where the outcomes are directly the censored times), but not both. In this paper, we propose a comparison methodology to weight up those different settings both in terms of prediction and variables selection, while incorporating advanced machine learning strategies. METHODS:Using a high-dimensional case study on a sickle-cell disease (SCD) cohort, we compare 8 statistical methods. In the binary outcome setting, we consider logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), gradient boosting (GB) and neural network (NN); while on the survival analysis setting, we consider the Cox Proportional Hazards (PH), the CURE and the C-mix models. We also propose a method using Gaussian Processes to extract meaningfull structured covariates from longitudinal data. RESULTS:Among all assessed statistical methods, the survival analysis ones obtain the best results. In particular the C-mix model yields the better performances in both the two considered settings (AUC =0.94 in the binary outcome setting), as well as interesting interpretation aspects. There is some consistency in selected covariates across methods within a setting, but not much across the two settings. CONCLUSIONS:It appears that learning withing the survival analysis setting first (so using all the temporal information), and then going back to a binary prediction using the survival estimates gives significantly better prediction performances than the ones obtained by models trained "directly" within the binary outcome setting.

Dataset Information

The Use of Covariates and Random Effects in Evaluating Predictive Biomarkers Under a Potential Outcome Framework.

Publications

The Use of Covariates and Random Effects in Evaluating Predictive Biomarkers Under a Potential Outcome Framework.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets