Literature DB >> 35906887

SurvBenchmark: comprehensive benchmarking study of survival analysis methods using both omics data and clinical data.

Yunwei Zhang1,2, Germaine Wong3,4,5, Graham Mann6,7, Samuel Muller1,8, Jean Y H Yang1,2,9.   

Abstract

Survival analysis is a branch of statistics that deals with both the tracking of time and the survival status simultaneously as the dependent response. Current comparisons of survival model performance mostly center on clinical data with classic statistical survival models, with prediction accuracy often serving as the sole metric of model performance. Moreover, survival analysis approaches for censored omics data have not been thoroughly investigated. The common approach is to binarize the survival time and perform a classification analysis. Here, we develop a benchmarking design, SurvBenchmark, that evaluates a diverse collection of survival models for both clinical and omics data sets. SurvBenchmark not only focuses on classical approaches such as the Cox model but also evaluates state-of-the-art machine learning survival models. All approaches were assessed using multiple performance metrics; these include model predictability, stability, flexibility, and computational issues. Our systematic comparison design with 320 comparisons (20 methods over 16 data sets) shows that the performances of survival models vary in practice over real-world data sets and over the choice of the evaluation metric. In particular, we highlight that using multiple performance metrics is critical in providing a balanced assessment of various models. The results in our study will provide practical guidelines for translational scientists and clinicians, as well as define possible areas of investigation in both survival technique and benchmarking strategies.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press GigaScience.

Entities:  

Keywords:  machine learning; survival analysis; survival prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35906887      PMCID: PMC9338425          DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giac071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gigascience        ISSN: 2047-217X            Impact factor:   7.658


  31 in total

1.  A tutorial on variable selection for clinical prediction models: feature selection methods in data mining could improve the results.

Authors:  Farideh Bagherzadeh-Khiabani; Azra Ramezankhani; Fereidoun Azizi; Farzad Hadaegh; Ewout W Steyerberg; Davood Khalili
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Estimation of time-dependent area under the ROC curve for long-term risk prediction.

Authors:  Lloyd E Chambless; Guoqing Diao
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Consistent estimation of the expected Brier score in general survival models with right-censored event times.

Authors:  Thomas A Gerds; Martin Schumacher
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.207

4.  Boosting for high-dimensional time-to-event data with competing risks.

Authors:  Harald Binder; Arthur Allignol; Martin Schumacher; Jan Beyersmann
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  On the C-statistics for evaluating overall adequacy of risk prediction procedures with censored survival data.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Tianxi Cai; Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; L J Wei
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Random Survival Forest in practice: a method for modelling complex metabolomics data in time to event analysis.

Authors:  Stefan Dietrich; Anna Floegel; Martina Troll; Tilman Kühn; Wolfgang Rathmann; Anette Peters; Disorn Sookthai; Martin von Bergen; Rudolf Kaaks; Jerzy Adamski; Cornelia Prehn; Heiner Boeing; Matthias B Schulze; Thomas Illig; Tobias Pischon; Sven Knüppel; Rui Wang-Sattler; Dagmar Drogan
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Large-scale benchmark study of survival prediction methods using multi-omics data.

Authors:  Moritz Herrmann; Philipp Probst; Roman Hornung; Vindi Jurinovic; Anne-Laure Boulesteix
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 11.622

8.  Evaluating the yield of medical tests.

Authors:  F E Harrell; R M Califf; D B Pryor; K L Lee; R A Rosati
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  BRAF mutation, NRAS mutation, and the absence of an immune-related expressed gene profile predict poor outcome in patients with stage III melanoma.

Authors:  Graham J Mann; Gulietta M Pupo; Anna E Campain; Candace D Carter; Sarah-Jane Schramm; Svetlana Pianova; Sebastien K Gerega; Chitra De Silva; Kenneth Lai; James S Wilmott; Maria Synnott; Peter Hersey; Richard F Kefford; John F Thompson; Yee Hwa Yang; Richard A Scolyer
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 8.551

10.  Protein signatures correspond to survival outcomes of AJCC stage III melanoma patients.

Authors:  Swetlana Mactier; Kimberley L Kaufman; Penghao Wang; Ben Crossett; Gulietta M Pupo; Philippa L Kohnke; John F Thompson; Richard A Scolyer; Jean Y Yang; Graham J Mann; Richard I Christopherson
Journal:  Pigment Cell Melanoma Res       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 4.693

View more
  2 in total

1.  SurvBenchmark: comprehensive benchmarking study of survival analysis methods using both omics data and clinical data.

Authors:  Yunwei Zhang; Germaine Wong; Graham Mann; Samuel Muller; Jean Y H Yang
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 7.658

2.  Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures.

Authors:  Raphael Sonabend; Andreas Bender; Sebastian Vollmer
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 6.931

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.