Literature DB >> 29271301

A Bayesian framework for performance assessment and comparison of imaging biomarker quantification methods.

Brian J Smith1, Reinhard R Beichel2,3.   

Abstract

Quantitative biomarkers derived from medical images are being used increasingly to help diagnose disease, guide treatment, and predict clinical outcomes. Measurement of quantitative imaging biomarkers is subject to bias and variability from multiple sources, including the scanner technologies that produce images, the approaches for identifying regions of interest in images, and the algorithms that calculate biomarkers from regions. Moreover, these sources may differ within and between the quantification methods employed by institutions, thus making it difficult to develop and implement multi-institutional standards. We present a Bayesian framework for assessing bias and variability in imaging biomarkers derived from different quantification methods, comparing agreement to a reference standard, studying prognostic performance, and estimating sample size for future clinical studies. The statistical methods are illustrated with data obtained from a positron emission tomography challenge conducted by members of the NCI's Quantitative Imaging Network program, in which tumor volumes were measured manually and with seven different semi-automated segmentation algorithms. Estimates and comparisons of bias and variability in the resulting measurements are provided along with an R software package for the technical performance analysis and an online web application for sample size and power analysis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian; Quantitative imaging biomarkers; agreement; bias; precision; sample size

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29271301      PMCID: PMC6045465          DOI: 10.1177/0962280217741334

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Current methods in medical image segmentation.

Authors:  D L Pham; C Xu; J L Prince
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 9.590

2.  An ROC-type measure of diagnostic accuracy when the gold standard is continuous-scale.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  An overview on assessing agreement with continuous measurements.

Authors:  Huiman X Barnhart; Michael J Haber; Lawrence I Lin
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.051

Review 4.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.

Authors:  P E Shrout; J L Fleiss
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 17.737

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

Authors:  Larry G Kessler; Huiman X Barnhart; Andrew J Buckler; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Marina V Kondratovich; Alicia Toledano; Alexander R Guimaraes; Ross Filice; Zheng Zhang; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Evaluating the yield of medical tests.

Authors:  F E Harrell; R M Califf; D B Pryor; K L Lee; R A Rosati
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Multi-site quality and variability analysis of 3D FDG PET segmentations based on phantom and clinical image data.

Authors:  Reinhard R Beichel; Brian J Smith; Christian Bauer; Ethan J Ulrich; Payam Ahmadvand; Mikalai M Budzevich; Robert J Gillies; Dmitry Goldgof; Milan Grkovski; Ghassan Hamarneh; Qiao Huang; Paul E Kinahan; Charles M Laymon; James M Mountz; John P Muzi; Mark Muzi; Sadek Nehmeh; Matthew J Oborski; Yongqiang Tan; Binsheng Zhao; John J Sunderland; John M Buatti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 8.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.

Authors:  David L Raunig; Lisa M McShane; Gene Pennello; Constantine Gatsonis; Paul L Carson; James T Voyvodic; Richard L Wahl; Brenda F Kurland; Adam J Schwarz; Mithat Gönen; Gudrun Zahlmann; Marina V Kondratovich; Kevin O'Donnell; Nicholas Petrick; Patricia E Cole; Brian Garra; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 9.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Anthony P Reeves; Erich P Huang; Xiao-Feng Wang; Andrew J Buckler; Hyun J Grace Kim; Huiman X Barnhart; Edward F Jackson; Maryellen L Giger; Gene Pennello; Alicia Y Toledano; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Paul E Kinahan; Kyle J Myers; Dmitry B Goldgof; Daniel P Barboriak; Robert J Gillies; Lawrence H Schwartz; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 10.  Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies.

Authors:  James P B O'Connor; Eric O Aboagye; Judith E Adams; Hugo J W L Aerts; Sally F Barrington; Ambros J Beer; Ronald Boellaard; Sarah E Bohndiek; Michael Brady; Gina Brown; David L Buckley; Thomas L Chenevert; Laurence P Clarke; Sandra Collette; Gary J Cook; Nandita M deSouza; John C Dickson; Caroline Dive; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; John R Griffiths; Ashley M Groves; Steve Halligan; Adrian L Harris; David J Hawkes; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Brian F Hutton; Edward F Jackson; Gordon C Jayson; Andrew Jones; Dow-Mu Koh; Denis Lacombe; Philippe Lambin; Nathalie Lassau; Martin O Leach; Ting-Yim Lee; Edward L Leen; Jason S Lewis; Yan Liu; Mark F Lythgoe; Prakash Manoharan; Ross J Maxwell; Kenneth A Miles; Bruno Morgan; Steve Morris; Tony Ng; Anwar R Padhani; Geoff J M Parker; Mike Partridge; Arvind P Pathak; Andrew C Peet; Shonit Punwani; Andrew R Reynolds; Simon P Robinson; Lalitha K Shankar; Ricky A Sharma; Dmitry Soloviev; Sigrid Stroobants; Daniel C Sullivan; Stuart A Taylor; Paul S Tofts; Gillian M Tozer; Marcel van Herk; Simon Walker-Samuel; James Wason; Kaye J Williams; Paul Workman; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kevin M Brindle; Lisa M McShane; Alan Jackson; John C Waterton
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 66.675

  10 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  The Use of Quantitative Imaging in Radiation Oncology: A Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) Perspective.

Authors:  Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Multisite Technical and Clinical Performance Evaluation of Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers from 3D FDG PET Segmentations of Head and Neck Cancer Images.

Authors:  Brian J Smith; John M Buatti; Christian Bauer; Ethan J Ulrich; Payam Ahmadvand; Mikalai M Budzevich; Robert J Gillies; Dmitry Goldgof; Milan Grkovski; Ghassan Hamarneh; Paul E Kinahan; John P Muzi; Mark Muzi; Charles M Laymon; James M Mountz; Sadek Nehmeh; Matthew J Oborski; Binsheng Zhao; John J Sunderland; Reinhard R Beichel
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2020-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.