Correlation-Adjusted Regression Survival Scores for High-Dimensional Variable Selection
Authors: Thomas Welchowski, Verena Zuber, Matthias Schmid
Abstract: Background: The development of classification methods for personalized medicine is highly dependent on the identification of predictive genetic markers. In survival analysis it is often necessary to discriminate between influential and non-influential markers. Usually, the first step is to perform a univariate screening step that ranks the markers according to their associations with the outcome. It is common to perform screening using Cox scores, which quantify the associations between survival and each of the markers individually. Since Cox scores do not account for dependencies between the markers, their use is suboptimal in the presence highly correlated markers. Methods: As an alternative to the Cox score, we propose the correlation-adjusted regression survival (CARS) score for right-censored survival outcomes. By removing the correlations between the markers, the CARS score quantifies the associations between the outcome and the set of "de-correlated" marker values. Estimation of the scores is based on inverse probability weighting, which is applied to log-transformed event times. For high-dimensional data, estimation is based on shrinkage techniques. Results: The consistency of the CARS score is proven under mild regularity conditions. In simulations, survival models based on CARS score rankings achieved higher areas under the precision-recall curve than competing methods. Two example applications on prostate and breast cancer confirmed these results. CARS scores are implemented in the R package carSurv. Conclusions: In research applications involving high-dimensional genetic data, the use of CARS scores for marker selection is a favorable alternative to Cox scores even when correlations between covariates are low. Having a straightforward interpretation and low computational requirements, CARS scores are an easy-to-use screening tool in personalized medicine research.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.