Testing for treatment‐biomarker interaction based on local partial‐likelihood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clinical trials, patients with different biomarker features may respond differently to the new treatments or drugs. In personalized medicine, it is important to study the interaction between treatment and biomarkers in order to clearly identify patients that benefit from the treatment. With the local partial-likelihood estimation (LPLE) method proposed by Fan J, Lin H, Zhou Y. Local partial-likelihood estimation for lifetime data. The Annals of Statistics 2006; 34(1):290Ű325, the treatment effect can be modeled as a flexible function of the biomarker. In this paper, we propose a bootstrap test method for survival outcome data based on the LPLE, for assessing whether the treatment effect is a constant among all patients or varies as a function of the biomarker. The test method is called local partial-likelihood bootstrap (LPLB) and is developed by bootstrapping the martingale residuals. The test statistic measures the amount of change in treatment effects across the entire range of the biomarker and is derived based on asymptotic theories for martingales. The LPLB method is nonparametric and is shown in simulations and data analysis examples to be flexible enough to identify treatment effects in a biomarker-defined subset and more powerful to detect treatment-biomarker interaction of complex forms than the Cox regression model with a simple interaction. We use data from a breast cancer and a prostate cancer clinical trial to illustrate the proposed LPLB test.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".