Els Coart1, Leandro García Barrado2, Flora H Duits3, Philip Scheltens3, Wiesje M van der Flier3,4, Charlotte E Teunissen5, Saskia M van der Vies6, Tomasz Burzykowski1,2. 1. International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. 2. Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and statistical Bioinformatics (I-BioStat), Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium. 3. Alzheimer Center & Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Neurochemistry Laboratory and Biobank, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Pathology, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are typically performed using the clinical diagnosis or amyloid-β positron emission tomography as the reference test. However, neither can be considered a gold standard or a perfect reference test for AD. Not accounting for errors in the reference test is known to cause bias in the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AD biomarkers while taking the imperfectness of the reference test into account. METHODS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AD biomarkers and taking the imperfectness of the reference test into account, we have developed a Bayesian method. This method establishes the biomarkers' true value in predicting the AD-pathology status by combining the reference test and the biomarker data with available information on the reliability of the reference test. The new methodology was applied to two clinical datasets to establish the joint accuracy of three cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers (amyloid-β 1 - 42, Total tau, and P-tau181p) by including the clinical diagnosis as imperfect reference test into the analysis. RESULTS: The area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve to discriminate between AD and controls, increases from 0.949 (with 95% credible interval [0.935,0.960]) to 0.990 ([0.985,0.995]) and from 0.870 ([0.817,0.912]) to 0.975 ([0.943,0.990]) for the cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Bayesian methodology enables an improved estimate of the exact diagnostic value of AD biomarkers and overcomes the lack of a gold standard for AD. Using the new method will increase the diagnostic confidence for early stages of AD.
BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are typically performed using the clinical diagnosis or amyloid-β positron emission tomography as the reference test. However, neither can be considered a gold standard or a perfect reference test for AD. Not accounting for errors in the reference test is known to cause bias in the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AD biomarkers while taking the imperfectness of the reference test into account. METHODS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AD biomarkers and taking the imperfectness of the reference test into account, we have developed a Bayesian method. This method establishes the biomarkers' true value in predicting the AD-pathology status by combining the reference test and the biomarker data with available information on the reliability of the reference test. The new methodology was applied to two clinical datasets to establish the joint accuracy of three cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers (amyloid-β 1 - 42, Total tau, and P-tau181p) by including the clinical diagnosis as imperfect reference test into the analysis. RESULTS: The area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve to discriminate between AD and controls, increases from 0.949 (with 95% credible interval [0.935,0.960]) to 0.990 ([0.985,0.995]) and from 0.870 ([0.817,0.912]) to 0.975 ([0.943,0.990]) for the cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Bayesian methodology enables an improved estimate of the exact diagnostic value of AD biomarkers and overcomes the lack of a gold standard for AD. Using the new method will increase the diagnostic confidence for early stages of AD.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alzheimer’s disease; Bayesian method; biomarkers; diagnostic test; reference standard
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie M Shaw; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Madhurima Chatterjee; Marta Del Campo; Tjado H J Morrema; Matthijs de Waal; Wiesje M van der Flier; Jeroen J M Hoozemans; Charlotte E Teunissen Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Rosha Babapour Mofrad; Niki S M Schoonenboom; Betty M Tijms; Philip Scheltens; Pieter Jelle Visser; Wiesje M van der Flier; Charlotte E Teunissen Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2018-11-12
Authors: R Babapour Mofrad; Leonie Nicoline Cornelia Visser; Agnetha Diantha Fruijtier; Philip Scheltens; Elisabeth Ellen Maria Antonia Smets; Wiesje Maria van der Flier; Charlotte Elisabeth Teunissen Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2019-06-12
Authors: D O T Alawode; A J Heslegrave; N J Ashton; T K Karikari; J Simrén; L Montoliu-Gaya; J Pannee; A O Connor; P S J Weston; J Lantero-Rodriguez; A Keshavan; A Snellman; J Gobom; R W Paterson; J M Schott; K Blennow; N C Fox; H Zetterberg Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 8.989