A larger sample would enable the generalisability of these findings to be tested, provide greater statistical power, and allow more robust risk-adjustment models to take into account case-mix differences.
The EASE score is regarded as a more conservative and robust adjustment than the Fisher exact probability [ 23].
Replacing the erosion/dilation operations with a more robust method of adjustment for uneven background lighting would likely result in an assessment algorithm with low bias at all severities.
First, we have used a propensity score matching method which provides more flexible and robust adjustment for confounding than regression methods provide when the distribution of potential confounding variables differs substantially between comparison groups.
In propensity score matched analysis, which might provide more robust control for confounders than adjustment, the results, although less precise, were similar to the main findings.
Additionally, by comparing FACS measurement of tumor purity, this Hill function form of MCF is more robust than either MAF without adjustment or simplistic piecewise function in assessing the fraction of cancer nuclei.
A more robust association was observed with further adjustment for BMI, blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and NAMPT levels (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06 – 2.01, p = 0.02).
We opted to use inverse probability weighted regression adjustment estimator (Austin, 2011) for more robust findings.
The large sample allowed adequate power for adjustment of many covariates, resulting in more robust comparisons and the ability to detect small differences within subgroups of the study population.
We also conducted analyses using propensity-score adjustment and matching, because these may be more robust when there are few outcomes per covariate [ 39, 40].
