Literature DB >> 24919826

The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions.

Larry G Kessler1, Huiman X Barnhart2, Andrew J Buckler3, Kingshuk Roy Choudhury2, Marina V Kondratovich4, Alicia Toledano5, Alexander R Guimaraes6, Ross Filice4, Zheng Zhang7, Daniel C Sullivan2.   

Abstract

The development and implementation of quantitative imaging biomarkers has been hampered by the inconsistent and often incorrect use of terminology related to these markers. Sponsored by the Radiological Society of North America, an interdisciplinary group of radiologists, statisticians, physicists, and other researchers worked to develop a comprehensive terminology to serve as a foundation for quantitative imaging biomarker claims. Where possible, this working group adapted existing definitions derived from national or international standards bodies rather than invent new definitions for these terms. This terminology also serves as a foundation for the design of studies that evaluate the technical performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers and for studies of algorithms that generate the quantitative imaging biomarkers from clinical scans. This paper provides examples of research studies and quantitative imaging biomarker claims that use terminology consistent with these definitions as well as examples of the rampant confusion in this emerging field. We provide recommendations for appropriate use of quantitative imaging biomarker terminological concepts. It is hoped that this document will assist researchers and regulatory reviewers who examine quantitative imaging biomarkers and will also inform regulatory guidance. More consistent and correct use of terminology could advance regulatory science, improve clinical research, and provide better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.
© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Quantitative; bias; definitions; precision; terminology

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24919826     DOI: 10.1177/0962280214537333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  99 in total

1.  Induced magnetic moment in stainless steel components of orthodontic appliances in 1.5 T MRI scanners.

Authors:  Zhiyue J Wang; Nancy K Rollins; Hui Liang; Yong Jong Park
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Metrology Standards for Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers.

Authors:  Daniel C Sullivan; Nancy A Obuchowski; Larry G Kessler; David L Raunig; Constantine Gatsonis; Erich P Huang; Marina Kondratovich; Lisa M McShane; Anthony P Reeves; Daniel P Barboriak; Alexander R Guimaraes; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards.

Authors:  Matthew J Nyflot; Fei Yang; Darrin Byrd; Stephen R Bowen; George A Sandison; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-08-05

4.  Impact of baseline covariate imbalance on bias in treatment effect estimation in cluster randomized trials: Race as an example.

Authors:  Siyun Yang; Monique Anderson Starks; Adrian F Hernandez; Elizabeth L Turner; Robert M Califf; Christopher M O'Connor; Robert J Mentz; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Impact of uncertainty in longitudinal T1 measurements on quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Madhava P Aryal; Thomas L Chenevert; Yue Cao
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 4.044

6.  Repeatability and reproducibility of 2D and 3D hepatic MR elastography with rigid and flexible drivers at end-expiration and end-inspiration in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Kang Wang; Paul Manning; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Tanya Wolfson; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Florin Vaida; Meng Yin; Kevin Glaser; Richard L Ehman; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-12

Review 7.  Biomarker development for axial spondyloarthritis.

Authors:  Matthew A Brown; Zhixiu Li; Kim-Anh Lê Cao
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 20.543

8.  Reproducibility and Repeatability of Semiquantitative 18F-Fluorodihydrotestosterone Uptake Metrics in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Metastases: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Gem M Kramer; Andrew M Scott; Andrew Weickhardt; Andreas A Meier; Nicole Parada; Bradley J Beattie; John L Humm; Kevin D Staton; Pat B Zanzonico; Serge K Lyashchenko; Jason S Lewis; Maqsood Yaqub; Ramon E Sosa; Alfons J van den Eertwegh; Ian D Davis; Uwe Ackermann; Kunthi Pathmaraj; Robert C Schuit; Albert D Windhorst; Sue Chua; Wolfgang A Weber; Steven M Larson; Howard I Scher; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Michael J Morris
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 9.  Review of quantitative multiscale imaging of breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-01-22

Review 10.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.