PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8614741

Practical p-value adjustment for optimally selected cutpoints.

S G Hilsenbeck·G M Clark
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper concerns a series of simulations undertaken to examine the effects of two data features--number of cutpoints and true marker prognostic effect size--on three methods of p-value adjustment (asymptotic, P(acor); improved Bonferroni, P(bon); and empirical permutation, P(emp)). H(o) rejection rates for P(emp) and P(bon) are almost indistinguishable from those for an independent validation sample (P(vld)), while those of P(acor) are somewhat conservative, especially when the number of cutpoints is small. Analysis of a new breast cancer prognostic marker, heat shock protein 70, illustrates the methods. These results underscore many of the problems associated with data-derived cutpoints in general, and the need for p-value adjustment.

Explore related subjects

BiasBiomarkersBreast NeoplasmsData Interpretation, StatisticalEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicFemaleHSP70 Heat-Shock ProteinsHumansPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsReproducibility of ResultsSurvival AnalysisJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S G Hilsenbeck, G M Clark. 1996-01-15. Practical p-value adjustment for optimally selected cutpoints.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19960115)15%3A1%3C103%3A%3Aaid-sim156%3E3.0.co%3B2-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed1998

Restriction as a method for reducing bias in the estimation of direct effects.

The direct effect of a treatment on some outcome is that part of the treatment's effect not referred through a specified covariate intermediate on the pathway between treatment and outcome. Such direct effects are often of primary interest in a data analysis. Unfortunately, standard methods of analysis (for example, stratification or modelling) do not, in general, produce consistent estimates of direct effects whether or not the covariate is 'controlled'. Robins and co-authors have proposed two methods for estimation of direct effects applicable when reliable information is available on the covariate. We propose a third approach for reducing bias: data restriction. By restricting the analysis to strata of the data in which the effect of treatment on the covariate is small, we can (under certain assumptions) reduce bias in estimating treatment's direct effect. We discuss these points with reference to difference and ratio measures of treatment effect. The approach will sometimes be applicable even with an unmeasured or poorly measured covariate. We illustrate these points with data from an observational study of the effect of hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer.

Bias↗