Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr;28(4):1003-1018.
doi: 10.1177/0962280217741334. Epub 2017 Dec 22.

A Bayesian framework for performance assessment and comparison of imaging biomarker quantification methods

Affiliations

A Bayesian framework for performance assessment and comparison of imaging biomarker quantification methods

Brian J Smith et al. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

Quantitative biomarkers derived from medical images are being used increasingly to help diagnose disease, guide treatment, and predict clinical outcomes. Measurement of quantitative imaging biomarkers is subject to bias and variability from multiple sources, including the scanner technologies that produce images, the approaches for identifying regions of interest in images, and the algorithms that calculate biomarkers from regions. Moreover, these sources may differ within and between the quantification methods employed by institutions, thus making it difficult to develop and implement multi-institutional standards. We present a Bayesian framework for assessing bias and variability in imaging biomarkers derived from different quantification methods, comparing agreement to a reference standard, studying prognostic performance, and estimating sample size for future clinical studies. The statistical methods are illustrated with data obtained from a positron emission tomography challenge conducted by members of the NCI's Quantitative Imaging Network program, in which tumor volumes were measured manually and with seven different semi-automated segmentation algorithms. Estimates and comparisons of bias and variability in the resulting measurements are provided along with an R software package for the technical performance analysis and an online web application for sample size and power analysis.

Keywords: Bayesian; Quantitative imaging biomarkers; agreement; bias; precision; sample size.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distributions of segmented tumor volumes from different quantitative image analysis methods.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of posterior predictive goodness-of-fit quantities evaluated at replicated data from the fitted Bayesian model and observed study data. Values of the posterior predictive p-value Pr(T(yrep|θ) ≥ T(y|θ)| y) close to 0.5 indicate agreement between the model and data.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Power and sample size web application for quantitative imaging biomarkers.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pham DL, Xu C, Prince JL. Current methods in medical image segmentation. Ann Rev Biomed Eng. 2000;2:315–337. - PubMed
    1. Beichel RR, Smith BJ, Bauer C, et al. Multi-site quality and variability analysis of 3D FDG PET segmentations based on phantom and clinical image data. Med Phys. 2017;44:479–496. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Obuchowski NA, Reeves AP, Huang EP, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons. Stat Meth Med Res. 2015;24:68–106. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ, et al. The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Meth Med Res. 2015;24:9–26. - PubMed
    1. Raunig DL, McShane LM, Pennello G, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers: A review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment. Stat Meth Med Res. 2015;24:27–67. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources