Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery.
Loth, Eva; Ahmad, Jumana; Chatham, Chris; López, Beatriz; Carter, Ben; Crawley, Daisy; Oakley, Bethany; Hayward, Hannah; Cooke, Jennifer; San José Cáceres, Antonia; Bzdok, Danilo; Jones, Emily; Charman, Tony; Beckmann, Christian; Bourgeron, Thomas; Toro, Roberto; Buitelaar, Jan; Murphy, Declan; Dumas, Guillaume.
Afiliação
  • Loth E; Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Ahmad J; Sackler Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Chatham C; Department of Psychology, Social Work and Counselling, Faculty of Education and Health, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
  • López B; Neuroscience & Rare Diseases, Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center New York, New York, United States of America.
  • Carter B; Department of Psychology, Portsmouth University, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
  • Crawley D; Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Oakley B; Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Hayward H; Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Cooke J; Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • San José Cáceres A; Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Bzdok D; Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Jones E; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Departamento de Psiquiatría del Niño y del Adolescente, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón and Centro Investigación Biomédica en Red Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Madrid, Spain.
  • Charman T; Department of Biomedical Engineering, McConnell Brain-Imaging Centre (BIC), Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI), Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
  • Beckmann C; Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), Canada.
  • Bourgeron T; Mila-Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, Montreal, Canada.
  • Toro R; Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Buitelaar J; Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Murphy D; Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
  • Dumas G; Human Genetics and Cognitive Functions, Institut Pasteur, UMR3571 CNRS, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
PLoS Comput Biol ; 17(11): e1009477, 2021 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34793435
ABSTRACT
Over the past decade, biomarker discovery has become a key goal in psychiatry to aid in the more reliable diagnosis and prognosis of heterogeneous psychiatric conditions and the development of tailored therapies. Nevertheless, the prevailing statistical approach is still the mean group comparison between "cases" and "controls," which tends to ignore within-group variability. In this educational article, we used empirical data simulations to investigate how effect size, sample size, and the shape of distributions impact the interpretation of mean group differences for biomarker discovery. We then applied these statistical criteria to evaluate biomarker discovery in one area of psychiatric research-autism research. Across the most influential areas of autism research, effect size estimates ranged from small (d = 0.21, anatomical structure) to medium (d = 0.36 electrophysiology, d = 0.5, eye-tracking) to large (d = 1.1 theory of mind). We show that in normal distributions, this translates to approximately 45% to 63% of cases performing within 1 standard deviation (SD) of the typical range, i.e., they do not have a deficit/atypicality in a statistical sense. For a measure to have diagnostic utility as defined by 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity, Cohen's d of 1.66 is required, with still 40% of cases falling within 1 SD. However, in both normal and nonnormal distributions, 1 (skewness) or 2 (platykurtic, bimodal) biologically plausible subgroups may exist despite small or even nonsignificant mean group differences. This conclusion drastically contrasts the way mean group differences are frequently reported. Over 95% of studies omitted the "on average" when summarising their findings in their abstracts ("autistic people have deficits in X"), which can be misleading as it implies that the group-level difference applies to all individuals in that group. We outline practical approaches and steps for researchers to explore mean group comparisons for the discovery of stratification biomarkers.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Biomarcadores / Biologia Computacional Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Biomarcadores / Biologia Computacional Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article