↓ Skip to main content

Simulation of complex data structures for planning of studies with focus on biomarker comparison

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Simulation of complex data structures for planning of studies with focus on biomarker comparison
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0364-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Schulz, Daniela Zöller, Stefan Nickels, Manfred E. Beutel, Maria Blettner, Philipp S. Wild, Harald Binder

Abstract

There are a growing number of observational studies that do not only focus on single biomarkers for predicting an outcome event, but address questions in a multivariable setting. For example, when quantifying the added value of new biomarkers in addition to established risk factors, the aim might be to rank several new markers with respect to their prediction performance. This makes it important to consider the marker correlation structure for planning such a study. Because of the complexity, a simulation approach may be required to adequately assess sample size or other aspects, such as the choice of a performance measure. In a simulation study based on real data, we investigated how to generate covariates with realistic distributions and what generating model should be used for the outcome, aiming to determine the least amount of information and complexity needed to obtain realistic results. As a basis for the simulation a large epidemiological cohort study, the Gutenberg Health Study was used. The added value of markers was quantified and ranked in subsampling data sets of this population data, and simulation approaches were judged by the quality of the ranking. One of the evaluated approaches, the random forest, requires original data at the individual level. Therefore, also the effect of the size of a pilot study for random forest based simulation was investigated. We found that simple logistic regression models failed to adequately generate realistic data, even with extensions such as interaction terms or non-linear effects. The random forest approach was seen to be more appropriate for simulation of complex data structures. Pilot studies starting at about 250 observations were seen to provide a reasonable level of information for this approach. We advise to avoid oversimplified regression models for simulation, in particular when focusing on multivariable research questions. More generally, a simulation should be based on real data for adequately reflecting complex observational data structures, such as found in epidemiological cohort studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 10 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 11 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,465,171
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,519
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,353
of 317,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.