{"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。
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.
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.