Dataset Information

Correlational biases in mean response latency differences.

ABSTRACT: Multifarious psychological constructs are indexed by the mean latency difference (MLD), the within-subject difference between mean response latency on two tasks. Two associations consistently emerge in mean latency data. Firstly, across subjects, mean latencies on distinct tasks are positively correlated. This correlation arises from individual differences in general rates of information processing that are a shared influence on response latency in diverse tasks. Secondly, across tasks, the mean and variance of mean latency are positively correlated. Compared to a simple task, a complex task has both a larger average mean latency and a larger variance of mean latency, across subjects. Taken together, these associations make the interpretation of the MLD problematic by biasing correlations between the MLD and (a) task mean latencies, (b) the average of the mean latencies, (c) external criteria, and (d) other MLDs. A variety of mean latency transformations were evaluated and, while they differed in their effectiveness, they did not satisfactorily rectify MLD biases. An alternative approach, focusing on scale invariant contrasts of within-subject response latency distributions, is introduced in the conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Sriram N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2879027 | biostudies-literature | 2010 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Correlational biases in mean response latency differences.

Sriram N N Greenwald Anthony G AG Nosek Brian A BA

Statistical methodology 20100501 3

Multifarious psychological constructs are indexed by the mean latency difference (MLD), the within-subject difference between mean response latency on two tasks. Two associations consistently emerge in mean latency data. Firstly, across subjects, mean latencies on distinct tasks are positively correlated. This correlation arises from individual differences in general rates of information processing that are a shared influence on response latency in diverse tasks. Secondly, across tasks, the mean ...[more]

PMID: 20526445

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Gene expression profiling has become a tool of choice to study pathological or developmental questions but in most cases the material is scarce and requires sample amplification. Two main procedures have been used: in vitro transcription (IVT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the former known as linear and the latter as exponential. Previous reports identified enzymatic pitfalls in PCR and IVT protocols; however the possible differences between the sequences affected by these amplification defaults were only rarely explored. RESULTS: Screening a bovine cDNA array dedicated to embryonic stages with embryonic (n = 3) and somatic tissues (n = 2), we proceeded to moderate amplifications starting from 1 mug of total RNA (global PCR or IVT one round). Whatever the tissue, 16% of the probes were involved in deviating gene expressions due to amplification defaults. These distortions were likely due to the molecular features of the affected sequences (position within a gene, GC content, hairpin number) but also to the relative abundance of these transcripts within the tissues. These deviating genes mainly encoded housekeeping genes from physiological or cellular processes (70%) and constituted 2 subsets which did not overlap (molecular features, signal intensities, gene ID). However, the differential expressions identified between embryonic stages were both reliable (minor intersect with biased expressions) and relevant (biologically validated). In addition, the relative expression levels of those genes were biologically similar between amplified and unamplified samples. CONCLUSION: Conversely to the most recent reports which challenged the use of intense amplification procedures on minute amounts of RNA, we chose moderate PCR and IVT amplifications for our gene profiling study. Conclusively, it appeared that systematic biases arose even with moderate amplification procedures, independently of (i) the sample used: brain, ovary or embryos, (ii) the enzymatic properties initially inferred (exponential or linear) and (iii) the preliminary optimization of the protocols. Moreover the use of an in-house developed array, small-sized but well suited to the tissues we worked with, was of real interest for the search of differential expressions.

Project description:Study objectivesPatients presenting with excessive sleepiness are frequently using antidepressant medication(s). While practice parameters recommend discontinuation of antidepressants prior to multiple sleep latency testing (MSLT), data examining the impact of tapering these medications on MSLT results are limited.MethodsAdult patients who underwent MSLT at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota, between 2014 and 2018 were included. Clinical and demographic characteristics, medications, including use of rapid eye movement-suppressing antidepressants (REMS-ADs) at assessment and during testing, actigraphy, and polysomnography data were manually abstracted. The difference in number of sleep-onset rapid eye movement periods (SOREMs), proportion with ≥2 SOREMs, and mean sleep latency in patients who were using REMS-ADs and discontinued prior to testing versus those who remained on REMS-ADs were examined. At our center, all antidepressants are discontinued 2 weeks prior to MSLT, wherever feasible; fluoxetine is stopped 6 weeks prior. Regression analyses accounting for demographic, clinical, and other medication-related confounders were performed.ResultsA total of 502 patients (age = 38.18 ± 15.90 years; 67% female) underwent MSLT; 178 (35%) were taking REMS-ADs at the time of assessment. REMS-AD was discontinued prior to MSLT in 121/178 (70%) patients. Patients whose REMS-AD was discontinued prior to MSLT were more likely to have ≥2 SOREMs (odds ratio: 12.20; 95% confidence interval: 1.60-92.94) compared with patients on REMS-ADs at MSLT. They also had shorter mean sleep latency (8.77 ± 0.46 vs 10.21 ± 0.28 minutes; P > .009) and higher odds of having ≥2 SOREMs (odds ratio: 2.22; 95% confidence interval: 1.23-3.98) compared with patients not taking REMS-ADs at initial assessment. These differences persisted after regression analyses accounting for confounders.ConclusionsPatients who taper off REMS-ADs prior to MSLT are more likely to demonstrate ≥2 SOREMs and have a shorter mean sleep latency. Pending further prospective investigations, clinicians should preferably withdraw REMS-ADs before MSLT. If this is not done, the test interpretation should include a statement regarding the potential effect of the drugs on the results.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Correlational biases in mean response latency differences.

Publications

Correlational biases in mean response latency differences.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets