Dataset Information

Unbiased tensor-based morphometry: improved robustness and sample size estimates for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: Various neuroimaging measures are being evaluated for tracking Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression in therapeutic trials, including measures of structural brain change based on repeated scanning of patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods to compute brain change must be robust to scan quality. Biases may arise if any scans are thrown out, as this can lead to the true changes being overestimated or underestimated. Here we analyzed the full MRI dataset from the first phase of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI-1) from the first phase of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI-1) and assessed several sources of bias that can arise when tracking brain changes with structural brain imaging methods, as part of a pipeline for tensor-based morphometry (TBM). In all healthy subjects who completed MRI scanning at screening, 6, 12, and 24months, brain atrophy was essentially linear with no detectable bias in longitudinal measures. In power analyses for clinical trials based on these change measures, only 39AD patients and 95 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects were needed for a 24-month trial to detect a 25% reduction in the average rate of change using a two-sided test (?=0.05, power=80%). Further sample size reductions were achieved by stratifying the data into Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ?4 carriers versus non-carriers. We show how selective data exclusion affects sample size estimates, motivating an objective comparison of different analysis techniques based on statistical power and robustness. TBM is an unbiased, robust, high-throughput imaging surrogate marker for large, multi-site neuroimaging studies and clinical trials of AD and MCI.

SUBMITTER: Hua X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3785376 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Unbiased tensor-based morphometry: improved robustness and sample size estimates for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

Hua Xue X Hibar Derrek P DP Ching Christopher R K CR Boyle Christina P CP Rajagopalan Priya P Gutman Boris A BA Leow Alex D AD Toga Arthur W AW Jack Clifford R CR Harvey Danielle D Weiner Michael W MW Thompson Paul M PM

NeuroImage 20121112

Various neuroimaging measures are being evaluated for tracking Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression in therapeutic trials, including measures of structural brain change based on repeated scanning of patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods to compute brain change must be robust to scan quality. Biases may arise if any scans are thrown out, as this can lead to the true changes being overestimated or underestimated. Here we analyzed the full MRI dataset from the first phase of Alzhe ...[more]

PMID: 23153970

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:An important step in designing, executing, and evaluating cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) is understanding the correlation and thus nonindependence that exists among individuals in a cluster. In hospital epidemiology, there is a shortage of CRTs that have published their intraclass correlation coefficient or coefficient of variation (CV), making prospective sample size calculations difficult for investigators. Objectives:To estimate the number of hospitals needed to power parallel CRTs of interventions to reduce health care-associated infection outcomes and to demonstrate how different parameters such as CV and expected effect size are associated with the sample size estimates in practice. Design, Setting, and Participants:This longitudinal cohort study estimated parameters for sample size calculations using national rates developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia, central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) from 2016. For MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) acquisition, outcomes were estimated using data from 2012 from the Benefits of Universal Glove and Gown study. Data were collected from June 2017 through September 2018 and analyzed from September 2018 through January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Calculated number of clusters needed for adequate power to detect an intervention effect using a 2-group parallel CRT. Results:To study an intervention with a 30% decrease in daily rates, 73 total clusters were needed (37 in the intervention group and 36 in the control group) for MRSA bacteremia, 82 for CAUTI, 60 for CLABSI, and 31 for CDI. If a 10% decrease in rates was expected, 768 clusters were needed for MRSA bacteremia, 875 for CAUTI, 631 for CLABSI, and 329 for CDI. For MRSA or VRE acquisition, 50 or 40 total clusters, respectively, were required to observe a 30% decrease, whereas 540 or 426 clusters, respectively, were required to detect a 10% decrease. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that large sample sizes are needed to appropriately power parallel CRTs targeting infection prevention outcomes. Sample sizes are most associated with expected effect size and CV of hospital rates.

Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:Clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease have been aimed primarily at persons who have cognitive symptoms at enrollment. However, researchers are now recognizing that the pathophysiological process of Alzheimer's disease begins years, if not decades, prior to the onset of clinical symptoms. Successful intervention may require intervening early in the disease process. Critical issues arise in designing clinical trials for primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease including determination of sample sizes and follow-up duration. We address a number of these issues through application of a unifying multistate model for the preclinical course of Alzheimer's disease. A multistate model allows us to specify at which points during the long disease process the intervention exerts its effects. METHODS:We used a nonhomogeneous Markov multistate model for the progression of Alzheimer's disease through preclinical disease states defined by biomarkers, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia. We used transition probabilities based on several published cohort studies. Sample size methods were developed that account for factors including the initial preclinical disease state of trial participants, the primary endpoint, age-dependent transition and mortality rates and specifications of which transition rates are the targets of the intervention. RESULTS:We find that Alzheimer's disease prevention trials with a clinical primary endpoint of mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease dementia will require sample sizes of the order many thousands of individuals with at least 5 years of follow-up, which is larger than most Alzheimer's disease therapeutic trials conducted to date. The reasons for the large trial sizes include the long and variable preclinical period that spans decades, high rates of attrition among elderly populations due to mortality and losses to follow-up and potential selection effects, whereby healthier subjects enroll in prevention trials. A web application is available to perform sample size calculations using the methods reported here. CONCLUSION:Sample sizes based on multistate models can account for the points in the disease process when interventions exert their effects and may lead to more accurate sample size determinations. We will need innovative strategies to help design Alzheimer's disease prevention trials with feasible sample size requirements and durations of follow-up.

Project description:5xFAD transgenic (TG) mice are used widely in AD preclinical trials; however, data on sample sizes are largely unaddressed. We therefore performed estimates of sample sizes and effect sizes for typical behavioural and neuropathological outcome measures in TG 5xFAD mice, based upon data from single-sex (female) groups. Group-size estimates to detect normalisation of TG body weight to WT littermate levels at 5.5m of age were N = 9-15 depending upon algorithm. However, by 1 year of age, group sizes were small (N = 1 -<6), likely reflecting the large difference between genotypes at this age. To detect normalisation of TG open-field hyperactivity to WT levels at 13-14m, group sizes were also small (N = 6-8). Cued learning in the Morris water maze (MWM) was normal in Young TG mice (5m of age). Mild deficits were noted during MWM spatial learning and memory. MWM reversal learning and memory revealed greater impairment, and groups of up to 22 TG mice were estimated to detect normalisation to WT performance. In contrast, Aged TG mice (tested between 13 and 14m) failed to complete the visual learning (non-spatial) phase of MWM learning, likely due to a failure to recognise the platform as an escape. Estimates of group size to detect normalisation of this severe impairment were small (N = 6-9, depending upon algorithm). Other cognitive tests including spontaneous and forced alternation and novel-object recognition either failed to reveal deficits in TG mice or deficits were negligible. For neuropathological outcomes, plaque load, astrocytosis and microgliosis in frontal cortex and hippocampus were quantified in TG mice aged 2m, 4m and 6m. Sample-size estimates were ≤9 to detect the equivalent of a reduction in plaque load to the level of 2m-old TG mice or the equivalent of normalisation of neuroinflammation outcomes. However, for a smaller effect size of 30%, larger groups of up to 21 mice were estimated. In light of published guidelines on preclinical trial design, these data may be used to provide provisional sample sizes and optimise preclinical trials in 5xFAD TG mice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trials play an important role in modern evidence-based medicine. Advantages of collecting data from more than one site are numerous, including accelerated recruitment and increased generalisability of results. Mixed models can be applied to account for potential clustering in the data, in particular when many small centres contribute patients to the study. Previously proposed methods on sample size calculation for mixed models only considered balanced treatment allocations which is an unlikely outcome in practice if block randomisation with reasonable choices of block length is used. METHODS:We propose a sample size determination procedure for multi-centre trials comparing two treatment groups for a continuous outcome, modelling centre differences using random effects and allowing for arbitrary sample sizes. It is assumed that block randomisation with fixed block length is used at each study site for subject allocation. Simulations are used to assess operation characteristics such as power of the sample size approach. The proposed method is illustrated by an example in disease management systems. RESULTS:A sample size formula as well as a lower and upper boundary for the required overall sample size are given. We demonstrate the superiority of the new sample size formula over the conventional approach of ignoring the multi-centre structure and show the influence of parameters such as block length or centre heterogeneity. The application of the procedure on the example data shows that large blocks require larger sample sizes, if centre heterogeneity is present. CONCLUSION:Unbalanced treatment allocation can result in substantial power loss when centre heterogeneity is present but not considered at the planning stage. When only few patients by centre will be recruited, one has to weigh the risk of imbalance between treatment groups due to large blocks and the risk of unblinding due to small blocks. The proposed approach should be considered when planning multi-centre trials.

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.

Dataset Information

Unbiased tensor-based morphometry: improved robustness and sample size estimates for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

Publications

Unbiased tensor-based morphometry: improved robustness and sample size estimates for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets