↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Addressing small sample size bias in multiple‐biomarker trials: Inclusion of biomarker‐negative patients and Firth correction
Published in
Biometrical Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/bimj.201600226
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In recent years, numerous approaches for biomarker-based clinical trials have been developed. One of these developments are multiple-biomarker trials, which aim to investigate multiple biomarkers simultaneously in independent subtrials. For low-prevalence biomarkers, small sample sizes within the subtrials have to be expected, as well as many biomarker-negative patients at the screening stage. The small sample sizes may make it unfeasible to analyze the subtrials individually. This imposes the need to develop new approaches for the analysis of such trials. With an expected large group of biomarker-negative patients, it seems reasonable to explore options to benefit from including them in such trials. We consider advantages and disadvantages of the inclusion of biomarker-negative patients in a multiple-biomarker trial with a survival endpoint. We discuss design options that include biomarker-negative patients in the study and address the issue of small sample size bias in such trials. We carry out a simulation study for a design where biomarker-negative patients are kept in the study and are treated with standard of care. We compare three different analysis approaches based on the Cox model to examine if the inclusion of biomarker-negative patients can provide a benefit with respect to bias and variance of the treatment effect estimates. We apply the Firth correction to reduce the small sample size bias. The results of the simulation study suggest that for small sample situations, the Firth correction should be applied to adjust for the small sample size bias. Additional to the Firth penalty, the inclusion of biomarker-negative patients in the analysis can lead to further but small improvements in bias and standard deviation of the estimates.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Mathematics 2 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2022.
All research outputs
#10,016,464
of 29,189,333 outputs
Outputs from Biometrical Journal
#148
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,272
of 336,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biometrical Journal
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,189,333 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 706 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them