The Big Data Paradox in Clinical Practice

References

• Rothman KJ. Epidemiology: an introduction. 2nd ed. OUP: Oxford; 2012. p. 280.
   Google Scholar
• Meng X-L. Statistical paradises and paradoxes in big data (I): law of large populations, big data paradox, and the 2016 US presidential election. Ann Appl Stat. 2018;12(2):685–726. doi:https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOAS1161SF.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazer D, Kennedy R, King G, Vespignani A. Big data. The parable of Google Flu: traps in big data analysis. Science. 2014;343(6176):1203–1205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley VC, Kuriwaki S, Isakov M, Sejdinovic D, Meng X-L, Flaxman S, et al. Unrepresentative big surveys significantly overestimated US vaccine uptake. Nature. 2021;600(7890):695–700. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04198-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senn S. Empirical studies of balance do not justify a requirement for 1,000 patients per trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.02.010.
   Google Scholar
• Korzybski A. Science and sanity: an introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. Vol. 44. Lakeville (CN): International Non-Aristotelian Library Pub. Co. Distributed by Institute of General Semantics; 1935.
   Google Scholar
• Borges JL. A universal history of infamy. 1st ed. New York (NY): Dutton; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Kim J. Events as property exemplifications. In: Brand M, Walton D, editors. Action theory. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1976. p. 310–326.
   Google Scholar
• Quine WV. Events and reification. In: Lepore E, McLaughlin B, editors. Actions and events: perspectives on the philosophy of Davidson. Oxford (UK): Blackwell; 1985. p. 162–171.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(Suppl 1):S144–S150. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shmueli G. To explain or to predict? Statist Sci. 2010;25(3):289–310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B. Prediction, estimation, and attribution. J Am Stat Assoc. 2020;115(530):636–655. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1762613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA. From the molecule to the clinic-inhibiting HER2 to treat breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(11):841–842. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200103153441110.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hernán MA, Hsu J, Healy B. A second chance to get causal inference right: a classification of data science tasks. CHANCE. 2019;32(1):42–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2019.1579578.
   Google Scholar
• Box GEP. Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In: Launer RL, Wilkinson GN, editors. Robustness in statistics. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Academic Press; 1979. p. 201–236.
   Google Scholar
• Geman S, Bienenstock E, Doursat R. Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma. Neural Comput. 1992;4(1):1–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1992.4.1.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu K, Meng X-L. There is individualized treatment. Why not individualized inference? Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2016;3(1):79–111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020310.
   Google Scholar
• Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE. Variance components. New York (NY): Wiley; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S. Principles of multilevel modelling. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(1):158–167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/29.1.158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James G, Witten D, Hastie T, et al. An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R. New York (NY): Springer; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S, Daniel R, Pearce N. Outcome modelling strategies in epidemiology: traditional methods and basic alternatives. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(2):565–575. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chai T, Draxler R. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? Geosci Model Dev. 2014;7:1247–1250. doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-7-1525-2014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senn S. Mastering variation: variance components and personalised medicine. Stat Med. 2016;35(7):966–977. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng X-L. Enhancing (publications on) data quality: deeper data minding and fuller data confession. R Stat Soc Ser A. 2021;184(4):1161–1175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12762.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds MW, Bourke A, Dreyer NA. Considerations when evaluating real-world data quality in the context of fitness for purpose. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29(10):1316–1318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen X, Meng F, Jiang R. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic biomarker for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11(746976). doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.746976.
   Google Scholar
• Msaouel P, Goswami S, Thall PF, Wang X, Yuan Y, Jonasch E, et al. A phase 1-2 trial of sitravatinib and nivolumab in clear cell renal cell carcinoma following progression on antiangiogenic therapy. Sci Transl Med. 2022;14(641):eabm6420. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abm6420.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Msaouel P, Lee J, Thall PF. Making patient-specific treatment decisions using prognostic variables and utilities of clinical outcomes. Cancers. 2021;13(11):2741. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Gonzalez AB, Cox DR. Interpretation of interaction: a review. Ann Appl Stat. 2007;1(2):371–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Müller P, Wahed AS, Thall PF. Bayesian nonparametric estimation for dynamic treatment regimes with sequential transition times. J Am Stat Assoc. 2016;111(515):921–935. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2015.1086353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman A. Bayesian data analysis. 3rd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Thall PF, Wathen JK, Bekele BN, Champlin RE, Baker LH, Benjamin RS, et al. Hierarchical Bayesian approaches to phase II trials in diseases with multiple subtypes. Stat Med. 2003;22(5):763–780. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Thall PF, Hua W, Andersson BS. Bayesian non-parametric survival regression for optimizing precision dosing of intravenous busulfan in allogeneic stem cell transplantation. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2019;68(3):809–828. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12331.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenland S, Hofman A. Multiple comparisons controversies are about context and costs, not frequentism versus Bayesianism. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019;34(9):801–808. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00552-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge; New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona-Bayonas A, Jiménez-Fonseca P, Gallego J, Msaouel P. Causal considerations can inform the interpretation of surprising associations in medical registries. Cancer Invest. 2022;40(1):1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07357907.2021.1999971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro DD, Msaouel P. Causal diagram techniques for urologic oncology research. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021;19(3):271 e1–271 e7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.08.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenland S, Mansournia MA. Penalization, bias reduction, and default priors in logistic and related categorical and survival regressions. Stat Med. 2015;34(23):3133–3143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansournia MA, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Hernán MA. Biases in randomized trials: a conversation between trialists and epidemiologists. Epidemiology. 2017;28(1):54–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge (UK); New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Msaouel P. Impervious to randomness: confounding and selection biases in randomized clinical trials. Cancer Invest. 2021;39(10):783–788. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07357907.2021.1974030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Msaouel P, Grivas P, Zhang T. Adjuvant systemic therapies for patients with renal cell carcinoma: choosing treatment based on patient-level characteristics. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;5:265–267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.09.003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McLoughlin EM, Gentzler RD. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. Thorac Surg Clin. 2020;30(2):127–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thorsurg.2020.01.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logothetis CJ, Gallick GE, Maity SN, Kim J, Aparicio A, Efstathiou E, et al. Molecular classification of prostate cancer progression: foundation for marker-driven treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer Discov. 2013;3(8):849–861. doi:https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafi Z, Greenland S. Semantic and cognitive tools to aid statistical science: replace confidence and significance by compatibility and surprise. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):244. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01105-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholls A. Confidence limits, error bars and method comparison in molecular modeling. Part 1: the calculation of confidence intervals. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2014;28(9):887–918. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-014-9753-z.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Council NR. Improving information for social policy decisions – the uses of microsimulation modeling: volume I. In: Constance F. Citro, Eric A. Hanushek, editors. Review and recommendations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1991. p. 89–96.
   Google Scholar
• Imrey PB, Dawid AP. A commentary on statistical assessment of violence recidivism risk. Stat Public Policy. 2015;2(1):1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1029338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar