用于分析来自多项研究的综合分类生物标志物数据的统计方法。

IF 1.3 4区 数学 Q2 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY Annals of Applied Statistics Pub Date : 2020-09-01 Epub Date: 2020-09-18 DOI:10.1214/20-aoas1337
Chao Cheng, Molin Wang
{"title":"用于分析来自多项研究的综合分类生物标志物数据的统计方法。","authors":"Chao Cheng, Molin Wang","doi":"10.1214/20-aoas1337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the analysis of pooled data from multiple studies involving a biomarker exposure, the biomarker measurements can vary across laboratories and usually require calibration to a reference assay prior to pooling. Previous researches consider the measurements from a reference laboratory as the gold standard, even though measurements in the reference laboratory are not necessarily closer to the underlying truth in reality. In this paper we do not treat any laboratory measurements as the gold standard, and we develop two statistical methods, the exact calibration and cut-off calibration methods, for the analysis of aggregated categorical biomarker data. We compare the performance of both methods for estimating the biomarker-disease relationship under a random sample or controls-only calibration design. Our findings include: (1) the exact calibration method provides significantly less biased estimates and more accurate confidence intervals than the other method; (2) the cut-off calibration method could yield estimates with minimal bias and valid confidence intervals under small measurement errors and/or small exposure effects; (3) controls-only calibration design can result in additional bias, but the bias is minimal if the exposure effects and/or disease prevalences are small. Finally, we illustrate the methods in an application evaluating the relationship between circulating vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer risk in a pooling project.</p>","PeriodicalId":50772,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Applied Statistics","volume":"14 3","pages":"1146-1163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903924/pdf/nihms-1669923.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF COMBINED CATEGORICAL BIOMARKER DATA FROM MULTIPLE STUDIES.\",\"authors\":\"Chao Cheng, Molin Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1214/20-aoas1337\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the analysis of pooled data from multiple studies involving a biomarker exposure, the biomarker measurements can vary across laboratories and usually require calibration to a reference assay prior to pooling. Previous researches consider the measurements from a reference laboratory as the gold standard, even though measurements in the reference laboratory are not necessarily closer to the underlying truth in reality. In this paper we do not treat any laboratory measurements as the gold standard, and we develop two statistical methods, the exact calibration and cut-off calibration methods, for the analysis of aggregated categorical biomarker data. We compare the performance of both methods for estimating the biomarker-disease relationship under a random sample or controls-only calibration design. Our findings include: (1) the exact calibration method provides significantly less biased estimates and more accurate confidence intervals than the other method; (2) the cut-off calibration method could yield estimates with minimal bias and valid confidence intervals under small measurement errors and/or small exposure effects; (3) controls-only calibration design can result in additional bias, but the bias is minimal if the exposure effects and/or disease prevalences are small. Finally, we illustrate the methods in an application evaluating the relationship between circulating vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer risk in a pooling project.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Applied Statistics\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"1146-1163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903924/pdf/nihms-1669923.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Applied Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1214/20-aoas1337\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/9/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Applied Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1214/20-aoas1337","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在分析涉及生物标志物暴露的多项研究的汇总数据时,不同实验室的生物标志物测量结果可能会有所不同,通常需要在汇总前校准参考测定。以往的研究将参考实验室的测量结果视为金标准,尽管参考实验室的测量结果并不一定更接近实际情况。在本文中,我们不把任何实验室的测量结果作为金标准,而是开发了两种统计方法--精确校准法和截止校准法,用于分析分类生物标记物的集合数据。我们比较了这两种方法在随机抽样或仅对照校准设计下估计生物标记物与疾病关系的性能。我们的研究结果包括(1) 与其他方法相比,精确校准法提供的估计值偏差小得多,置信区间也更准确;(2) 在测量误差小和/或暴露效应小的情况下,截止校准法可以得到偏差最小的估计值和有效的置信区间;(3) 仅对照的校准设计会导致额外的偏差,但如果暴露效应和/或疾病流行率小,偏差就会很小。最后,我们在一个评估循环维生素 D 水平与结直肠癌风险之间关系的集合项目中对这些方法进行了说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF COMBINED CATEGORICAL BIOMARKER DATA FROM MULTIPLE STUDIES.

In the analysis of pooled data from multiple studies involving a biomarker exposure, the biomarker measurements can vary across laboratories and usually require calibration to a reference assay prior to pooling. Previous researches consider the measurements from a reference laboratory as the gold standard, even though measurements in the reference laboratory are not necessarily closer to the underlying truth in reality. In this paper we do not treat any laboratory measurements as the gold standard, and we develop two statistical methods, the exact calibration and cut-off calibration methods, for the analysis of aggregated categorical biomarker data. We compare the performance of both methods for estimating the biomarker-disease relationship under a random sample or controls-only calibration design. Our findings include: (1) the exact calibration method provides significantly less biased estimates and more accurate confidence intervals than the other method; (2) the cut-off calibration method could yield estimates with minimal bias and valid confidence intervals under small measurement errors and/or small exposure effects; (3) controls-only calibration design can result in additional bias, but the bias is minimal if the exposure effects and/or disease prevalences are small. Finally, we illustrate the methods in an application evaluating the relationship between circulating vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer risk in a pooling project.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Applied Statistics 社会科学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
131
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Statistical research spans an enormous range from direct subject-matter collaborations to pure mathematical theory. The Annals of Applied Statistics, the newest journal from the IMS, is aimed at papers in the applied half of this range. Published quarterly in both print and electronic form, our goal is to provide a timely and unified forum for all areas of applied statistics.
期刊最新文献
PATIENT RECRUITMENT USING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS UNDER SELECTION BIAS: A TWO-PHASE SAMPLING FRAMEWORK. A NONPARAMETRIC MIXED-EFFECTS MIXTURE MODEL FOR PATTERNS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19. A bootstrap model comparison test for identifying genes with context-specific patterns of genetic regulation. BIVARIATE FUNCTIONAL PATTERNS OF LIFETIME MEDICARE COSTS AMONG ESRD PATIENTS. EXPOSURE EFFECTS ON COUNT OUTCOMES WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA, WITH APPLICATION TO INCARCERATED WOMEN.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1