These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Quantitative imaging biomarkers: Effect of sample size and bias on confidence interval coverage.
    Author: Obuchowski NA, Bullen J.
    Journal: Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Oct; 27(10):3139-3150. PubMed ID: 29298603.
    Abstract:
    Introduction Quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) are being increasingly used in medical practice and clinical trials. An essential first step in the adoption of a quantitative imaging biomarker is the characterization of its technical performance, i.e. precision and bias, through one or more performance studies. Then, given the technical performance, a confidence interval for a new patient's true biomarker value can be constructed. Estimating bias and precision can be problematic because rarely are both estimated in the same study, precision studies are usually quite small, and bias cannot be measured when there is no reference standard. Methods A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted to assess factors affecting nominal coverage of confidence intervals for a new patient's quantitative imaging biomarker measurement and for change in the quantitative imaging biomarker over time. Factors considered include sample size for estimating bias and precision, effect of fixed and non-proportional bias, clustered data, and absence of a reference standard. Results Technical performance studies of a quantitative imaging biomarker should include at least 35 test-retest subjects to estimate precision and 65 cases to estimate bias. Confidence intervals for a new patient's quantitative imaging biomarker measurement constructed under the no-bias assumption provide nominal coverage as long as the fixed bias is <12%. For confidence intervals of the true change over time, linearity must hold and the slope of the regression of the measurements vs. true values should be between 0.95 and 1.05. The regression slope can be assessed adequately as long as fixed multiples of the measurand can be generated. Even small non-proportional bias greatly reduces confidence interval coverage. Multiple lesions in the same subject can be treated as independent when estimating precision. Conclusion Technical performance studies of quantitative imaging biomarkers require moderate sample sizes in order to provide robust estimates of bias and precision for constructing confidence intervals for new patients. Assumptions of linearity and non-proportional bias should be assessed thoroughly.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]