Quantifying lead-time bias in risk factor studies of cancer through simulation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jansen RJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3839248 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Quantifying lead-time bias in risk factor studies of cancer through simulation.
Jansen Rick J RJ Alexander Bruce H BH Anderson Kristin E KE Church Timothy R TR
Annals of epidemiology 20130827 11
<h4>Purpose</h4>Lead-time is inherent in early detection and creates bias in observational studies of screening efficacy, but its potential to bias effect estimates in risk factor studies is not always recognized. We describe a form of this bias that conventional analyses cannot address and develop a model to quantify it.<h4>Methods</h4>Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data form the basis for estimates of age-specific preclinical incidence, and log-normal distributions describe t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Compiling the catalogue of genes actively involved in cancer is an ongoing endeavor, with profound implications to the understanding and treatment of the disease. An abundance of computational methods have been developed to screening the genome for candidate driver genes based on genomic data of somatic mutations in tumors. Existing methods make many implicit and explicit assumptions about the distribution of random mutations. We present FABRIC, a new framework for quantifying the selection of genes in cancer by assessing the effects of de-novo somatic mutations on protein-coding genes. Using a machine-learning model, we quantified the functional effects of ∼3M somatic mutations extracted from over 10 000 human cancerous samples, and compared them against the effects of all possible single-nucleotide mutations in the coding human genome. We detected 593 protein-coding genes showing statistically significant bias towards harmful mutations. These genes, discovered without any prior knowledge, show an overwhelming overlap with known cancer genes, but also include many overlooked genes. FABRIC is designed to avoid false discoveries by comparing each gene to its own background model using rigorous statistics, making minimal assumptions about the distribution of random somatic mutations. The framework is an open-source project with a simple command-line interface.
| S-EPMC6649814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite its demonstrated biological significance, time of day is a broadly overlooked biological variable in preclinical and clinical studies. How time of day affects the influence of peripheral tumors on central (brain) function remains unspecified. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that peripheral mammary cancer tumors alter the transcriptome of immune responses in the brain and that these responses vary based on time of day; we predicted that time of day sampling bias would alter the interpretation of the results. Brain tissues collected at mid dark and mid light from mammary tumor-bearing and vehicle injected mice were analyzed using the Nanostring nCounter Mouse Neuroinflammation Panel V1. Peripheral mammary tumors significantly affected expression within the brain of over 100 unique genes of the 770 represented in the panel, and fewer than 25% of these genes were affected similarly across the day. Indeed, between 65-75% of GO biological processes represented by the differentially expressed genes were dependent upon time of day of sampling. The implications of time-of-day sampling bias in interpretation of research studies cannot be understated. We encourage considering time of day as a significant biological variable in studies and to appropriately control for it and clearly report time of day in findings.
2024-01-09 | GSE249022 | GEO
Project description:Despite its demonstrated biological significance, time of day is a broadly overlooked biological variable in preclinical and clinical studies. How time of day affects the influence of peripheral tumors on central (brain) function remains unspecified. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that peripheral mammary cancer tumors alter the transcriptome of immune responses in the brain and that these responses vary based on time of day; we predicted that time of day sampling bias would alter the interpretation of the results. Brain tissues collected at mid dark and mid light from mammary tumor-bearing and vehicle injected mice were analyzed using the Nanostring nCounter immune panel. Peripheral mammary tumors significantly affected expression within the brain of over 100 unique genes of the 770 represented in the panel, and fewer than 25% of these genes were affected similarly across the day. Indeed, between 65 and 75% of GO biological processes represented by the differentially expressed genes were dependent upon time of day of sampling. The implications of time-of-day sampling bias in interpretation of research studies cannot be understated. We encourage considering time of day as a significant biological variable in studies and to appropriately control for it and clearly report time of day in findings.
| S-EPMC10774401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low-dose computed tomography screening can be used to diagnose lung cancer at a younger age compared to no screening. Real-world studies observing mortality after lung cancer diagnosis are subject to lead-time bias. This study developed a method using a nationwide cancer registry and stage shift from trial for the adjustment of lead-time bias. 78,897 Taiwanese nationwide lung cancer patients aged 55-82 were matched with 788,820 referents randomly selected from the general population at a ratio of 1:10 by age, sex, calendar year, and comorbidities, to estimate the pathology- and stage-specific life expectancy (LE). Loss-of-LE is the difference between the LE of cancer patients and that of referents. By multiplying LE and loss-of-LE by the pathology and stage shift in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), we compared the effectiveness of cancer screening measured by LE gained and loss-of-LE saved. The mean LEs of stage IA and IV adenocarcinoma were 14.5 and 1.9 years, respectively, indicating a LE gain of 12.6 years. However, the mean loss-of-LEs of stage IA and IV adenocarcinoma were 3.7 and 15.1 years, respectively, with a saving of only 11.4 years, implying an adjustment of different distributions of age, sex, and calendar year of diagnosis from stage shift and a reduction in lead-time bias. Applying such estimations on the results of 10,000 participants with the same pathology and stage shift in the NLST, the benefit of screening using LE gained would be 410.3 (95% prediction interval: 328.4 to 503.3) years. It became 297.1 (95% prediction interval: 187.8 to 396.4) years when using loss-of-LE saved, indicating the former approach would overestimate the effectiveness by 38%. Our approach of multiplying loss-of-LE by pathology and stage shift to estimate loss-of-LE saved could adjust for different distributions of age, sex, and calendar year at early diagnosis and reduce lead-time bias.
| S-EPMC8190256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationGenome-wide association studies have identified thousands of loci associated with human disease, but identifying the causal genes at these loci is often difficult. Several methods prioritize genes most likely to be disease causing through the integration of biological data, including protein-protein interaction and phenotypic data. Data availability is not the same for all genes however, potentially influencing the performance of these methods.ResultsWe demonstrate that whilst disease genes tend to be associated with greater numbers of data, this may be at least partially a result of them being better studied. With this observation we develop PhenoRank, which prioritizes disease genes whilst avoiding being biased towards genes with more available data. Bias is avoided by comparing gene scores generated for the query disease against gene scores generated using simulated sets of phenotype terms, which ensures that differences in data availability do not affect the ranking of genes. We demonstrate that whilst existing prioritization methods are biased by data availability, PhenoRank is not similarly biased. Avoiding this bias allows PhenoRank to effectively prioritize genes with fewer available data and improves its overall performance. PhenoRank outperforms three available prioritization methods in cross-validation (PhenoRank area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.89, DADA AUC = 0.87, EXOMISER AUC = 0.71, PRINCE AUC = 0.83, P < 2.2 × 10-16).Availability and implementationPhenoRank is freely available for download at https://github.com/alexjcornish/PhenoRank.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC5949213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Analyses of female representation in clinical studies have been limited in scope and scale. Objective:To perform a large-scale analysis of global enrollment sex bias in clinical studies. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study, clinical studies from published articles from PubMed from 1966 to 2018 and records from Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov from 1999 to 2018 were identified. Global disease prevalence was determined for male and female patients in 11 disease categories from the Global Burden of Disease database: cardiovascular, diabetes, digestive, hepatitis (types A, B, C, and E), HIV/AIDS, kidney (chronic), mental, musculoskeletal, neoplasms, neurological, and respiratory (chronic). Machine reading algorithms were developed that extracted sex data from tables in articles and records on December 31, 2018, at an artificial intelligence research institute. Male and female participants in 43 135 articles (792 004 915 participants) and 13 165 records (12 977 103 participants) were included. Main Outcomes and Measures:Sex bias was defined as the difference between the fraction of female participants in study participants minus prevalence fraction of female participants for each disease category. A total of 1000 bootstrap estimates of sex bias were computed by resampling individual studies with replacement. Sex bias was reported as mean and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals from articles and records in each disease category over time (before or during 1993 to 2018), with studies or participants as the measurement unit. Results:There were 792 004 915 participants, including 390 470 834 female participants (49%), in articles and 12 977 103 participants, including 6 351 619 female participants (49%), in records. With studies as measurement unit, substantial female underrepresentation (sex bias ≤ -0.05) was observed in 7 of 11 disease categories, especially HIV/AIDS (mean for articles, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.18 to -0.16]), chronic kidney diseases (mean, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.17 to -0.16]), and cardiovascular diseases (mean, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.13]). Sex bias in articles for all categories combined was unchanged over time with studies as measurement unit (range, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.13] to -0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.06]), but improved from before or during 1993 (mean, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.05]) to 2014 to 2018 (mean, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) with participants as the measurement unit. Larger study size was associated with greater female representation. Conclusions and Relevance:Automated extraction of the number of participants in clinical reports provides an effective alternative to manual analysis of demographic bias. Despite legal and policy initiatives to increase female representation, sex bias against female participants in clinical studies persists. Studies with more participants have greater female representation. Differences between sex bias estimates with studies vs participants as measurement unit, and between articles vs records, suggest that sex bias with both measures and data sources should be reported.
| S-EPMC6613296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCharacterizing microbial communities via next-generation sequencing is subject to a number of pitfalls involving sample processing. The observed community composition can be a severe distortion of the quantities of bacteria actually present in the microbiome, hampering analysis and threatening the validity of conclusions from metagenomic studies. We introduce an experimental protocol using mock communities for quantifying and characterizing bias introduced in the sample processing pipeline. We used 80 bacterial mock communities comprised of prescribed proportions of cells from seven vaginally-relevant bacterial strains to assess the bias introduced in the sample processing pipeline. We created two additional sets of 80 mock communities by mixing prescribed quantities of DNA and PCR product to quantify the relative contribution to bias of (1) DNA extraction, (2) PCR amplification, and (3) sequencing and taxonomic classification for particular choices of protocols for each step. We developed models to predict the "true" composition of environmental samples based on the observed proportions, and applied them to a set of clinical vaginal samples from a single subject during four visits.ResultsWe observed that using different DNA extraction kits can produce dramatically different results but bias is introduced regardless of the choice of kit. We observed error rates from bias of over 85% in some samples, while technical variation was very low at less than 5% for most bacteria. The effects of DNA extraction and PCR amplification for our protocols were much larger than those due to sequencing and classification. The processing steps affected different bacteria in different ways, resulting in amplified and suppressed observed proportions of a community. When predictive models were applied to clinical samples from a subject, the predicted microbiome profiles were better reflections of the physiology and diagnosis of the subject at the visits than the observed community compositions.ConclusionsBias in 16S studies due to DNA extraction and PCR amplification will continue to require attention despite further advances in sequencing technology. Analysis of mock communities can help assess bias and facilitate the interpretation of results from environmental samples.
| S-EPMC4433096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Risk maps estimating the spatial distribution of infectious diseases are required to guide public health policy from local to global scales. The advent of model-based geostatistics (MBG) has allowed these maps to be generated in a formal statistical framework, providing robust metrics of map uncertainty that enhances their utility for decision-makers. In many settings, decision-makers require spatially aggregated measures over large regions such as the mean prevalence within a country or administrative region, or national populations living under different levels of risk. Existing MBG mapping approaches provide suitable metrics of local uncertainty--the fidelity of predictions at each mapped pixel--but have not been adapted for measuring uncertainty over large areas, due largely to a series of fundamental computational constraints. Here the authors present a new efficient approximating algorithm that can generate for the first time the necessary joint simulation of prevalence values across the very large prediction spaces needed for global scale mapping. This new approach is implemented in conjunction with an established model for P. falciparum allowing robust estimates of mean prevalence at any specified level of spatial aggregation. The model is used to provide estimates of national populations at risk under three policy-relevant prevalence thresholds, along with accompanying model-based measures of uncertainty. By overcoming previously unchallenged computational barriers, this study illustrates how MBG approaches, already at the forefront of infectious disease mapping, can be extended to provide large-scale aggregate measures appropriate for decision-makers.
| S-EPMC2848537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bias due to selective mortality is a potential concern in many studies and is especially relevant in cognitive aging research because cognitive impairment strongly predicts subsequent mortality. Biased estimation of the effect of an exposure on rate of cognitive decline can occur when mortality is a common effect of exposure and an unmeasured determinant of cognitive decline and in similar settings. This potential is often represented as collider-stratification bias in directed acyclic graphs, but it is difficult to anticipate the magnitude of bias. In this paper, we present a flexible simulation platform with which to quantify the expected bias in longitudinal studies of determinants of cognitive decline. We evaluated potential survival bias in naive analyses under several selective survival scenarios, assuming that exposure had no effect on cognitive decline for anyone in the population. Compared with the situation with no collider bias, the magnitude of bias was higher when exposure and an unmeasured determinant of cognitive decline interacted on the hazard ratio scale to influence mortality or when both exposure and rate of cognitive decline influenced mortality. Bias was, as expected, larger in high-mortality situations. This simulation platform provides a flexible tool for evaluating biases in studies with high mortality, as is common in cognitive aging research.
| S-EPMC5013884 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundNetworks of trials assessing several treatment options available for the same condition are increasingly considered. Randomized trial evidence may be missing because of reporting bias. We propose a test for reporting bias in trial networks.MethodsWe test whether there is an excess of trials with statistically significant results across a network of trials. The observed number of trials with nominally statistically significant p-values across the network is compared with the expected number. The performance of the test (type I error rate and power) was assessed using simulation studies under different scenarios of selective reporting bias. Examples are provided for networks of antidepressant and antipsychotic trials, where reporting biases have been previously demonstrated by comparing published to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.ResultsIn simulations, the test maintained the type I error rate and was moderately powerful after adjustment for type I error rate, except when the between-trial variance was substantial. In all, a positive test result increased moderately or markedly the probability of reporting bias being present, while a negative test result was not very informative. In the two examples, the test gave a signal for an excess of statistically significant results in the network of published data but not in the network of FDA data.ConclusionThe test could be useful to document an excess of significant findings in trial networks, providing a signal for potential publication bias or other selective analysis and outcome reporting biases.
| S-EPMC4193287 | biostudies-literature