Dataset Information

Sample size estimates for well-powered cross-sectional cortical thickness studies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cortical thickness mapping is a widely used method for the analysis of neuroanatomical differences between subject groups. We applied power analysis methods over a range of image processing parameters to derive a model that allows researchers to calculate the number of subjects required to ensure a well-powered cross-sectional cortical thickness study.

Methods

0.9-mm isotropic T1 -weighted 3D MPRAGE MRI scans from 98 controls (53 females, age 29.1 ± 9.7 years) were processed using Freesurfer 5.0. Power analyses were carried out using vertex-wise variance estimates from the coregistered cortical thickness maps, systematically varying processing parameters. A genetic programming approach was used to derive a model describing the relationship between sample size and processing parameters. The model was validated on four Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative control datasets (mean 126.5 subjects/site, age 76.6 ± 5.0 years).

Results

Approximately 50 subjects per group are required to detect a 0.25-mm thickness difference; less than 10 subjects per group are required for differences of 1 mm (two-sided test, 10 mm smoothing, α = 0.05). Sample size estimates were heterogeneous over the cortical surface. The model yielded sample size predictions within 2-6% of that determined experimentally using independent data from four other datasets. Fitting parameters of the model to data from each site reduced the estimation error to less than 2%.

Conclusions

The derived model provides a simple tool for researchers to calculate how many subjects should be included in a well-powered cortical thickness analysis.

SUBMITTER: Pardoe HR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3500581 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeThe measurement of cortical shrinkage is a candidate marker of disease progression in Alzheimer's. This study evaluated the performance of two pipelines: Civet-CLASP (v1.1.9) and Freesurfer (v5.3.0).MethodsImages from 185 ADNI1 cases (69 elderly controls (CTR), 37 stable MCI (sMCI), 27 progressive MCI (pMCI), and 52 Alzheimer (AD) patients) scanned at baseline, month 12, and month 24 were processed using the two pipelines and two interconnected e-infrastructures: neuGRID (https://neugrid4you.eu) and VIP (http://vip.creatis.insa-lyon.fr). The vertex-by-vertex cross-algorithm comparison was made possible applying the 3D gradient vector flow (GVF) and closest point search (CPS) techniques.ResultsThe cortical thickness measured with Freesurfer was systematically lower by one third if compared to Civet's. Cross-sectionally, Freesurfer's effect size was significantly different in the posterior division of the temporal fusiform cortex. Both pipelines were weakly or mildly correlated with the Mini Mental State Examination score (MMSE) and the hippocampal volumetry. Civet differed significantly from Freesurfer in large frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital regions (p<0.05). In a discriminant analysis with cortical ROIs having effect size larger than 0.8, both pipelines gave no significant differences in area under the curve (AUC). Longitudinally, effect sizes were not significantly different in any of the 28 ROIs tested. Both pipelines weakly correlated with MMSE decay, showing no significant differences. Freesurfer mildly correlated with hippocampal thinning rate and differed in the supramarginal gyrus, temporal gyrus, and in the lateral occipital cortex compared to Civet (p<0.05). In a discriminant analysis with ROIs having effect size larger than 0.6, both pipelines yielded no significant differences in the AUC.ConclusionsCivet appears slightly more sensitive to the typical AD atrophic pattern at the MCI stage, but both pipelines can accurately characterize the topography of cortical thinning at the dementia stage.

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) is the most diagnosed sexually transmitted infection in Belgium. Screening programs focus on young women, due to the implications of chronic asymptomatic infections for reproductive health. Thereby, the frequency of infections in men and older adults is underestimated. This study aimed to estimate the point-prevalence of chlamydia in the broader Belgian population, to inform evidence-based prevention and control strategies.MethodsWe conducted two cross-sectional prevalence studies of chlamydia infection in the population of Belgium aged 16-59 years, 2018-2020. In the CT1 study 12,000 representative individuals were randomly selected from the national register and invited by letter to collect a urine sample at home. The CT2 study used urine samples collected through the Belgian Health Examination Survey. Molecular detection of chlamydia DNA was performed using Xpert® or Abbott Real-Time CT/NG assays. Weighted estimated prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated per gender and age groups of 16/18-29, 30-44 and 45-59 years, relative to the general Belgian population. Data collected on sociodemographic variables and sexual behavior were used to identify potential risk factors for chlamydia infection through calculation of the odds ratio (OR).ResultsThe population-wide weighted estimated prevalence was 1.54% (95% CI 0.78-3) in CT1 and 1.76% (95% CI 0.63-4) in CT2. We observed no statistically significant difference between men and women or age groups. Civil relationship status (OR = 14.1 (95% CI 1.78-112), p < 0.01), sexual intercourse with a casual partner (OR = 6.31 (95% CI 1.66-24.1), p < 0.01) and > 3 sexual partners in the last 12 months (OR = 4.53 (95% CI 1.10-18.6), p = 0.02) were associated with higher relative risk for chlamydia infection.ConclusionNationwide prevalence studies are relevant to assess the distribution of chlamydia and inform public health actions. The overall low prevalence and heterogeneous distribution of chlamydia in the general Belgian population needs to be considered for future strategies and potential harm of testing and treating asymptomatic individuals need to be taken into account. Effective case management should include appropriate treatment of symptomatic patients and partner notification, and prevention strategies should encourage behaviors such as condom use.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Research for developing search strategies to retrieve high-quality clinical journal articles from MEDLINE is expensive and time-consuming. The objective of this study was to determine the minimal number of high-quality articles in a journal subset that would need to be hand-searched to update or create new MEDLINE search strategies for treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis studies. METHODS: The desired width of the 95% confidence intervals (W) for the lowest sensitivity among existing search strategies was used to calculate the number of high-quality articles needed to reliably update search strategies. New search strategies were derived in journal subsets formed by 2 approaches: random sampling of journals and top journals (having the most high-quality articles). The new strategies were tested in both the original large journal database and in a low-yielding journal (having few high-quality articles) subset. RESULTS: For treatment studies, if W was 10% or less for the lowest sensitivity among our existing search strategies, a subset of 15 randomly selected journals or 2 top journals were adequate for updating search strategies, based on each approach having at least 99 high-quality articles. The new strategies derived in 15 randomly selected journals or 2 top journals performed well in the original large journal database. Nevertheless, the new search strategies developed using the random sampling approach performed better than those developed using the top journal approach in a low-yielding journal subset. For studies of diagnosis and prognosis, no journal subset had enough high-quality articles to achieve the expected W (10%). CONCLUSION: The approach of randomly sampling a small subset of journals that includes sufficient high-quality articles is an efficient way to update or create search strategies for high-quality articles on therapy in MEDLINE. The concentrations of diagnosis and prognosis articles are too low for this approach.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sources93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Data extractionSample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial.Data synthesisTrials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥ 1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials).ResultsTreatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00).ConclusionsTreatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.