Table 1.

Simulation study results: subgroup identification performance

Scenario	True # responders	Size	Sens.	Spec.	PPV	NPV	Incl.	Only
Case 1
SORA	125.41	395.71	0.99	0.28	0.32	0.99	0.42	0.01	36.24
VT	125.41	149.12	0.94	0.92	0.84	0.98	1.00	0.30	35.91
Tree	125.41	309.12	0.96	0.50	0.43	0.97	0.96	0.05	36.04
Case 2
SORA	125.41	279.90	0.64	0.47	0.30	0.80	0.10	0.002	30.47
VT	125.41	162.86	0.45	0.72	0.36	0.80	0.41	0.03	30.46
Tree	125.41	263.90	0.59	0.49	0.29	0.79	0.22	0.00	30.44
Case 3
SORA	125.41	357.02	0.90	0.35	0.33	0.92	0.21	0.004	32.76
VT	125.41	180.73	0.67	0.74	0.53	0.88	0.90	0.13	32.44
Tree	125.41	303.75	0.77	0.45	0.35	0.85	0.61	0.04	32.51
Case 4
SORA	250.26	247.76	0.68	0.68	0.70	0.70	0.39	0.01	31.03
VT	250.26	166.33	0.51	0.85	0.77	0.65	0.73	0.10	31.04
Tree	250.26	262.10	0.64	0.60	0.64	0.66	0.46	0.03	30.72
Case 5
SORA	500	391.88	0.78	—	1.00	—	—	—	32.36
VT	500	211.60	0.42	—	0.99	—	—	—	31.28
Tree	500	338.47	0.68	—	1.00	—	—	—	32.04
Case 6
SORA	0	249.83	—	0.50	—	1.00	—	—	30.01
VT	0	147.21	—	0.71	—	1.00	—	—	30.01
Tree	0	254.47	—	0.49	—	1.00	—	—	30.01
Case 7
SORA	449.98	436.08	0.90	0.39	0.93	0.32	0.37	0.01	36.14
VT	449.98	233.30	0.51	0.88	0.98	0.17	0.76	0.10	34.16
Tree	449.98	375.88	0.78	0.47	0.93	0.22	0.46	0.03	35.39
Case 8
SORA	250.46	251.30	0.63	0.63	0.65	0.65	—	—	30.78
VT	250.46	168.13	0.45	0.78	0.68	0.60	0.01	0.004	30.71
Tree	250.46	251.89	0.60	0.59	0.61	0.61	0.03	0.00	30.58

Values represent averages across 500 simulated data sets. VT failed to identify a subgroup in 3.6% of data sets for Case 2, 3.2% for Case 4, 0.8% for Case 5, 7.2% for Case 6, and 2.8% for Case 8. Tree method failed to identify a subgroup in 4.4% of data sets for Case 2, 3% for Case 4, 6.6% for Case 6, and 4.4% for Case 8.

True responders defined as those with .

In Case 8, these columns indicates inclusion of and .