Implications of Selection Bias Due to Delayed Study Entry in Clinical Genomic Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Real-world data sets that combine clinical and genomic data may be subject to left truncation (when potential study participants are not included because they have already passed the milestone of interest at the time of study recruitment). The lapse between diagnosis and molecular testing can present analytic challenges and threaten the validity and interpretation of survival analyses. OBSERVATIONS: Effects of ignoring left truncation when estimating overall survival are illustrated using data from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange Biopharma Collaborative (GENIE BPC), and a straightforward risk-set adjustment approach is described. Ignoring left truncation results in overestimation of overall survival: unadjusted median survival estimates from diagnosis among patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer or stage IV colorectal cancer were overestimated by more than 1 year. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinicogenomic data are a valuable resource for evaluation of real-world cancer outcomes and should be analyzed using appropriate methods to maximize their potential. Analysts must become adept at application of appropriate statistical methods to ensure valid, meaningful, and generalizable research findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".