Literature DB >> 28943991

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY IN BIOMARKER INCREMENTAL VALUE EVALUATION UNDER TWO-PHASE DESIGNS.

Yingye Zheng1, Marshall Brown1, Anna Lok2, Tianxi Cai3.   

Abstract

Cost-effective yet efficient designs are critical to the success of biomarker evaluation research. Two-phase sampling designs, under which expensive markers are only measured on a subsample of cases and non-cases within a prospective cohort, are useful in novel biomarker studies for preserving study samples and minimizing cost of biomarker assaying. Statistical methods for quantifying the predictiveness of biomarkers under two-phase studies have been proposed (Cai and Zheng, 2012; Liu, Cai and Zheng, 2012). These methods are based on a class of inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimators where weights are 'true' sampling weights that simply reflect the sampling strategy of the study. While simple to implement, existing IPW estimators are limited by lack of practicality and efficiency. In this manuscript, we investigate a variety of two-phase design options and provide statistical approaches aimed at improving the efficiency of simple IPW estimators by incorporating auxiliary information available for the entire cohort. We consider accuracy summary estimators that accommodate auxiliary information in the context of evaluating the incremental values of novel biomarkers over existing prediction tools. In addition, we evaluate the relative efficiency of a variety of sampling and estimation options under two-phase studies, shedding light on issues pertaining to both the design and analysis of biomarker validation studies. We apply our methods to the evaluation of a novel biomarker for liver cancer risk conducted with a two-phase nested case control design (Lok et al., 2010).

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarker; prediction accuracy; risk prediction; two-phase study

Year:  2017        PMID: 28943991      PMCID: PMC5604898          DOI: 10.1214/16-AOAS997

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Appl Stat        ISSN: 1932-6157            Impact factor:   2.083


  15 in total

1.  Exposure stratified case-cohort designs.

Authors:  O Borgan; B Langholz; S O Samuelsen; L Goldstein; J Pogoda
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Using the whole cohort in the analysis of case-cohort data.

Authors:  Norman E Breslow; Thomas Lumley; Christie M Ballantyne; Lloyd E Chambless; Michal Kulich
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Weighted analyses for cohort sampling designs.

Authors:  Robert J Gray
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2008-08-19       Impact factor: 1.588

5.  A prospective study of inflammation markers and endometrial cancer risk in postmenopausal hormone nonusers.

Authors:  Tao Wang; Thomas E Rohan; Marc J Gunter; Xiaonan Xue; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Swapnil N Rajpathak; Mary Cushman; Howard D Strickler; Robert C Kaplan; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Philipp E Scherer; Gloria Y F Ho
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Estimation of absolute risk from nested case-control data.

Authors:  B Langholz; O Borgan
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Two criteria for evaluating risk prediction models.

Authors:  R M Pfeiffer; M H Gail
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Non-parametric Evaluation of Biomarker Accuracy under Nested Case-control Studies.

Authors:  Tianxi Cai; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 5.033

9.  Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin and alpha-fetoprotein as biomarkers for the early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Anna S Lok; Richard K Sterling; James E Everhart; Elizabeth C Wright; John C Hoefs; Adrian M Di Bisceglie; Timothy R Morgan; Hae-Young Kim; William M Lee; Herbert L Bonkovsky; Jules L Dienstag
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers with stratified case-cohort design.

Authors:  Dandan Liu; Tianxi Cai; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  3 in total

1.  IMPROVING EFFICIENCY IN BIOMARKER INCREMENTAL VALUE EVALUATION UNDER TWO-PHASE DESIGNS.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Marshall Brown; Anna Lok; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Biomarker evaluation under imperfect nested case-control design.

Authors:  Xuan Wang; Yingye Zheng; Majken Karoline Jensen; Zeling He; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Study Design Considerations for Cancer Biomarker Discoveries.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng
Journal:  J Appl Lab Med       Date:  2018-09
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.