Literature DB >> 23706752

The impact of registration accuracy on imaging validation study design: A novel statistical power calculation.

Eli Gibson1, Aaron Fenster, Aaron D Ward.   

Abstract

Novel imaging modalities are pushing the boundaries of what is possible in medical imaging, but their signal properties are not always well understood. The evaluation of these novel imaging modalities is critical to achieving their research and clinical potential. Image registration of novel modalities to accepted reference standard modalities is an important part of characterizing the modalities and elucidating the effect of underlying focal disease on the imaging signal. The strengths of the conclusions drawn from these analyses are limited by statistical power. Based on the observation that in this context, statistical power depends in part on uncertainty arising from registration error, we derive a power calculation formula relating registration error, number of subjects, and the minimum detectable difference between normal and pathologic regions on imaging, for an imaging validation study design that accommodates signal correlations within image regions. Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the derived models and test the strength of their assumptions, showing that the model yielded predictions of the power, the number of subjects, and the minimum detectable difference of simulated experiments accurate to within a maximum error of 1% when the assumptions of the derivation were met, and characterizing sensitivities of the model to violations of the assumptions. The use of these formulae is illustrated through a calculation of the number of subjects required for a case study, modeled closely after a prostate cancer imaging validation study currently taking place at our institution. The power calculation formulae address three central questions in the design of imaging validation studies: (1) What is the maximum acceptable registration error? (2) How many subjects are needed? (3) What is the minimum detectable difference between normal and pathologic image regions?
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Imaging validation studies; Minimum detectable difference; Registration error; Sample size; Statistical power calculation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23706752     DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2013.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Image Anal        ISSN: 1361-8415            Impact factor:   8.545


  4 in total

1.  Association of BDNF and BCHE with Alzheimer's disease: Meta-analysis based on 56 genetic case-control studies of 12,563 cases and 12,622 controls.

Authors:  Huihui Ji; Dongjun Dai; Yunliang Wang; Danjie Jiang; Xingyu Zhou; Peipei Lin; Xiaosui Ji; Jinfeng Li; Yuzheng Zhang; Honglei Yin; Rongrong Chen; Lina Zhang; Mingqing Xu; Shiwei Duan; Qinwen Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 2.447

2.  Association of NQO1 and TNF polymorphisms with Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis of 15 genetic association studies.

Authors:  Dongjun Dai; Peipei Lin; Yunliang Wang; Xingyu Zhou; Jianmin Tao; Danjie Jiang; Hanlin Zhou; Ping Ru; Guanghui Pan; Jinfeng Li; Yuzheng Zhang; Honglei Yin; Shiwei Duan
Journal:  Biomed Rep       Date:  2014-06-16

3.  Polymorphisms of DRD2 and DRD3 genes and Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dongjun Dai; Yunliang Wang; Lingyan Wang; Jinfeng Li; Qingqing Ma; Jianmin Tao; Xingyu Zhou; Hanlin Zhou; Yi Jiang; Guanghui Pan; Limin Xu; Ping Ru; Danfeng Lin; Jun Pan; Leiting Xu; Meng Ye; Shiwei Duan
Journal:  Biomed Rep       Date:  2014-01-13

4.  Meta-analysis of the actions of antithymocyte globulin in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Authors:  Jiaojiao Yuan; Renzhi Pei; Wensi Su; Junjie Cao; Ying Lu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-02-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.