» Articles » PMID: 24919829

Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers: a Review of Statistical Methods for Computer Algorithm Comparisons

Abstract

Quantitative biomarkers from medical images are becoming important tools for clinical diagnosis, staging, monitoring, treatment planning, and development of new therapies. While there is a rich history of the development of quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) techniques, little attention has been paid to the validation and comparison of the computer algorithms that implement the QIB measurements. In this paper we provide a framework for QIB algorithm comparisons. We first review and compare various study designs, including designs with the true value (e.g. phantoms, digital reference images, and zero-change studies), designs with a reference standard (e.g. studies testing equivalence with a reference standard), and designs without a reference standard (e.g. agreement studies and studies of algorithm precision). The statistical methods for comparing QIB algorithms are then presented for various study types using both aggregate and disaggregate approaches. We propose a series of steps for establishing the performance of a QIB algorithm, identify limitations in the current statistical literature, and suggest future directions for research.

Citing Articles

How accurately can quantitative imaging methods be ranked without ground truth: An upper bound on no-gold-standard evaluation.

Liu Y, Jha A Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2024; 12929.

PMID: 39610808 PMC: 11601990. DOI: 10.1117/12.3006888.


Special Report on the Consensus QIBA Profile for Objective Analytical Validation of Non-calcified and High-risk Plaque and Other Biomarkers using Computed Tomography Angiography.

Buckler A, Abbara S, Budoff M, Carr J, De Cecco C, DeMarco J Acad Radiol. 2024; 31(12):4811-4820.

PMID: 39060206 PMC: 11606787. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.07.014.


Improved quantitative parameter estimation for prostate T relaxometry using convolutional neural networks.

Bolan P, Saunders S, Kay K, Gross M, Akcakaya M, Metzger G MAGMA. 2024; 37(4):721-735.

PMID: 39042205 PMC: 11417079. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-024-01186-3.


Time-efficient combined morphologic and quantitative joint MRI: an in situ study of standardized knee cartilage defects in human cadaveric specimens.

Lemainque T, Pridohl N, Zhang S, Huppertz M, Post M, Yuksel C Eur Radiol Exp. 2024; 8(1):66.

PMID: 38834751 PMC: 11150352. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-024-00462-0.


Two for One-Combined Morphologic and Quantitative Knee Joint MRI Using a Versatile Turbo Spin-Echo Platform.

Lemainque T, Pridohl N, Huppertz M, Post M, Yuksel C, Siepmann R Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(10).

PMID: 38786276 PMC: 11120432. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14100978.


References
1.
St Laurent R . Evaluating agreement with a gold standard in method comparison studies. Biometrics. 1998; 54(2):537-45. View

2.
Barnhart H, Kosinski A, Haber M . Assessing individual agreement. J Biopharm Stat. 2007; 17(4):697-719. DOI: 10.1080/10543400701329489. View

3.
Bland J, Altman D . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2):135-60. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800204. View

4.
Kupinski M, Hoppin J, Clarkson E, Barrett H, Kastis G . Estimation in medical imaging without a gold standard. Acad Radiol. 2002; 9(3):290-7. PMC: 3143018. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80372-0. View

5.
Barnhart H, Williamson J . Modeling concordance correlation via GEE to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 2001; 57(3):931-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00931.x. View