26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Statistical evaluation of test-retest studies in PET brain imaging

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Translated abstract

          Background

          Positron emission tomography (PET) is a molecular imaging technology that enables in vivo quantification of metabolic activity or receptor density, among other applications. Examples of applications of PET imaging in neuroscience include studies of neuroreceptor/neurotransmitter levels in neuropsychiatric diseases (e.g., measuring receptor expression in schizophrenia) and of misfolded protein levels in neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., beta amyloid and tau deposits in Alzheimer’s disease). Assessment of a PET tracer’s test-retest properties is an important component of tracer validation, and it is usually carried out using data from a small number of subjects.

          Results

          Here, we investigate advantages and limitations of test-retest metrics that are commonly used for PET brain imaging, including percent test-retest difference and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In addition, we show how random effects analysis of variance, which forms the basis for ICC, can be used to derive additional test-retest metrics, which are generally not reported in the PET brain imaging test-retest literature, such as within-subject coefficient of variation and repeatability coefficient. We reevaluate data from five published clinical PET imaging test-retest studies to illustrate the relative merits and utility of the various test-retest metrics. We provide recommendations on evaluation of test-retest in brain PET imaging and show how the random effects ANOVA based metrics can be used to supplement the commonly used metrics such as percent test-retest.

          Conclusions

          Random effects ANOVA is a useful model for PET brain imaging test-retest studies. The metrics that ensue from this model are recommended to be reported along with the percent test-retest metric as they capture various sources of variability in the PET test-retest experiments in a succinct way.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data.

          S Julious (2004)
          This article gives an overview of sample size calculations for parallel group and cross-over studies with Normal data. Sample size derivation is given for trials where the objective is to demonstrate: superiority, equivalence, non-inferiority, bioequivalence and estimation to a given precision, for different types I and II errors. It is demonstrated how the different trial objectives influence the null and alternative hypotheses of the trials and how these hypotheses influence the calculations. Sample size tables for the different types of trials and worked examples are given. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            Technological developments and greater rigor in the quantitative measurement of biological features in medical images have given rise to an increased interest in using quantitative imaging biomarkers to measure changes in these features. Critical to the performance of a quantitative imaging biomarker in preclinical or clinical settings are three primary metrology areas of interest: measurement linearity and bias, repeatability, and the ability to consistently reproduce equivalent results when conditions change, as would be expected in any clinical trial. Unfortunately, performance studies to date differ greatly in designs, analysis method, and metrics used to assess a quantitative imaging biomarker for clinical use. It is therefore difficult or not possible to integrate results from different studies or to use reported results to design studies. The Radiological Society of North America and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance with technical, radiological, and statistical experts developed a set of technical performance analysis methods, metrics, and study designs that provide terminology, metrics, and methods consistent with widely accepted metrological standards. This document provides a consistent framework for the conduct and evaluation of quantitative imaging biomarker performance studies so that results from multiple studies can be compared, contrasted, or combined.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Positron emission tomography compartmental models.

              The current article presents theory for compartmental models used in positron emission tomography (PET). Both plasma input models and reference tissue input models are considered. General theory is derived and the systems are characterized in terms of their impulse response functions. The theory shows that the macro parameters of the system may be determined simply from the coefficients of the impulse response functions. These results are discussed in the context of radioligand binding studies. It is shown that binding potential is simply related to the integral of the impulse response functions for all plasma and reference tissue input models currently used in PET. This article also introduces a general compartmental description for the behavior of the tracer in blood, which then allows for the blood volume-induced bias in reference tissue input models to be assessed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                richard_baumgartner@merck.com
                aniketjoshi@gmail.com
                dai_feng@merck.com
                Francesca.Zanderigo@nyspi.columbia.edu
                to166@cumc.columbia.edu
                Journal
                EJNMMI Res
                EJNMMI Res
                EJNMMI Research
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                2191-219X
                12 February 2018
                12 February 2018
                2018
                : 8
                : 13
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2260 0793, GRID grid.417993.1, Merck and Co., Inc., ; Kenilworth, NJ USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0439 2056, GRID grid.418424.f, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, ; Cambridge, USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2285 2675, GRID grid.239585.0, Department of Psychiatry, , Columbia University Medical Center, ; New York, NY USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8499 1112, GRID grid.413734.6, Molecular Imaging and Neuropathology Division, , New York State Psychiatric Institute, ; New York, NY USA
                [5 ]ISNI 0000000419368729, GRID grid.21729.3f, Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, , Columbia University, ; New York, NY USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3330-8477
                Article
                366
                10.1186/s13550-018-0366-8
                5809632
                29435678
                585cff37-7730-4220-bfb7-fa79c8acc813
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 6 November 2017
                : 30 January 2018
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Radiology & Imaging
                Radiology & Imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article