↓ Skip to main content

Detecting treatment-subgroup interactions in clustered data with generalized linear mixed-effects model trees

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
q&a
2 Q&A threads

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
Detecting treatment-subgroup interactions in clustered data with generalized linear mixed-effects model trees
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, October 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0971-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Fokkema, N. Smits, A. Zeileis, T. Hothorn, H. Kelderman

Abstract

Identification of subgroups of patients for whom treatment A is more effective than treatment B, and vice versa, is of key importance to the development of personalized medicine. Tree-based algorithms are helpful tools for the detection of such interactions, but none of the available algorithms allow for taking into account clustered or nested dataset structures, which are particularly common in psychological research. Therefore, we propose the generalized linear mixed-effects model tree (GLMM tree) algorithm, which allows for the detection of treatment-subgroup interactions, while accounting for the clustered structure of a dataset. The algorithm uses model-based recursive partitioning to detect treatment-subgroup interactions, and a GLMM to estimate the random-effects parameters. In a simulation study, GLMM trees show higher accuracy in recovering treatment-subgroup interactions, higher predictive accuracy, and lower type II error rates than linear-model-based recursive partitioning and mixed-effects regression trees. Also, GLMM trees show somewhat higher predictive accuracy than linear mixed-effects models with pre-specified interaction effects, on average. We illustrate the application of GLMM trees on an individual patient-level data meta-analysis on treatments for depression. We conclude that GLMM trees are a promising exploratory tool for the detection of treatment-subgroup interactions in clustered datasets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Professor 6 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 41 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 17 12%
Psychology 15 11%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 48 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,405,657
of 25,473,687 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#260
of 2,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,750
of 338,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#6
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,473,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 338,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.