Dataset Information

Determining organ weight toxicity with Bayesian causal models: Improving on the analysis of relative organ weights.

ABSTRACT: Regulatory authorities require animal toxicity tests for new chemical entities. Organ weight changes are accepted as a sensitive indicator of chemically induced organ damage, but can be difficult to interpret because changes in organ weight might reflect chemically-induced changes in overall body weight. A common solution is to calculate the relative organ weight (organ to body weight ratio), but this inadequately controls for the dependence on body weight - a point made by statisticians for decades, but which has not been widely adopted. The recommended solution is an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), but it is rarely used, possibly because both the method of statistical correction and the interpretation of the output may be unclear to those with minimal statistical training. Using relative organ weights can easily lead to incorrect conclusions, resulting in poor decisions, wasted resources, and an ethically questionable use of animals. We propose to cast the problem into a causal modelling framework as it directly assesses questions of scientific interest, the results are easy to interpret, and the analysis is simple to perform with freely available software. Furthermore, by taking a Bayesian approach we can model unequal variances, control for multiple testing, and directly provide evidence of safety.

SUBMITTER: Lazic SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7170916 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Determining organ weight toxicity with Bayesian causal models: Improving on the analysis of relative organ weights.

Lazic Stanley E SE Semenova Elizaveta E Williams Dominic P DP

Scientific reports 20200420 1

Regulatory authorities require animal toxicity tests for new chemical entities. Organ weight changes are accepted as a sensitive indicator of chemically induced organ damage, but can be difficult to interpret because changes in organ weight might reflect chemically-induced changes in overall body weight. A common solution is to calculate the relative organ weight (organ to body weight ratio), but this inadequately controls for the dependence on body weight - a point made by statisticians for dec ...[more]

PMID: 32313041

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandom-effects (RE) models are commonly applied to account for heterogeneity in effect sizes in gene expression meta-analysis. The degree of heterogeneity may differ due to inconsistencies in sample quality. High heterogeneity can arise in meta-analyses containing poor quality samples. We applied sample-quality weights to adjust the study heterogeneity in the DerSimonian and Laird (DSL) and two-step DSL (DSLR2) RE models and the Bayesian random-effects (BRE) models with unweighted and weighted data, Gibbs and Metropolis-Hasting (MH) sampling algorithms, weighted common effect, and weighted between-study variance. We evaluated the performance of the models through simulations and illustrated application of the methods using Alzheimer's gene expression datasets.ResultsSample quality adjusting within study variance (wP6) models provided an appropriate reduction of differentially expressed (DE) genes compared to other weighted functions in classical RE models. The BRE model with a uniform(0,1) prior was appropriate for detecting DE genes as compared to the models with other prior distributions. The precision of DE gene detection in the heterogeneous data was increased with the DSLR2wP6 weighted model compared to the DSLwP6 weighted model. Among the BRE weighted models, the wP6weighted- and unweighted-data models and both Gibbs- and MH-based models performed similarly. The wP6 weighted common-effect model performed similarly to the unweighted model in the homogeneous data, but performed worse in the heterogeneous data. The wP6weighted data were appropriate for detecting DE genes with high precision, while the wP6weighted between-study variance models were appropriate for detecting DE genes with high overall accuracy. Without the weight, when the number of genes in microarray increased, the DSLR2 performed stably, while the overall accuracy of the BRE model was reduced. When applying the weighted models in the Alzheimer's gene expression data, the number of DE genes decreased in all metadata sets with the DSLR2wP6weighted and the wP6weighted between study variance models. Four hundred and forty-six DE genes identified by the wP6weighted between study variance model could be potentially down-regulated genes that may contribute to good classification of Alzheimer's samples.ConclusionsThe application of sample quality weights can increase precision and accuracy of the classical RE and BRE models; however, the performance of the models varied depending on data features, levels of sample quality, and adjustment of parameter estimates.

Project description:BackgroundWhen analysing spatial data, it is important to account for spatial autocorrelation. In Bayesian statistics, spatial autocorrelation is commonly modelled by the intrinsic conditional autoregressive prior distribution. At the heart of this model is a spatial weights matrix which controls the behaviour and degree of spatial smoothing. The purpose of this study is to review the main specifications of the spatial weights matrix found in the literature, and together with some new and less common specifications, compare the effect that they have on smoothing and model performance.MethodsThe popular BYM model is described, and a simple solution for addressing the identifiability issue among the spatial random effects is provided. Seventeen different definitions of the spatial weights matrix are defined, which are classified into four classes: adjacency-based weights, and weights based on geographic distance, distance between covariate values, and a hybrid of geographic and covariate distances. These last two definitions embody the main novelty of this research. Three synthetic data sets are generated, each representing a different underlying spatial structure. These data sets together with a real spatial data set from the literature are analysed using the models. The models are evaluated using the deviance information criterion and Moran's I statistic.ResultsThe deviance information criterion indicated that the model which uses binary, first-order adjacency weights to perform spatial smoothing is generally an optimal choice for achieving a good model fit. Distance-based weights also generally perform quite well and offer similar parameter interpretations. The less commonly explored options for performing spatial smoothing generally provided a worse model fit than models with more traditional approaches to smoothing, but usually outperformed the benchmark model which did not conduct spatial smoothing.ConclusionsThe specification of the spatial weights matrix can have a colossal impact on model fit and parameter estimation. The results provide some evidence that a smaller number of neighbours used in defining the spatial weights matrix yields a better model fit, and may provide a more accurate representation of the underlying spatial random field. The commonly used binary, first-order adjacency weights still appear to be a good choice for implementing spatial smoothing.

Project description:BackgroundCausal inference has seen an increasing popularity in medical research. Estimation of causal effects from observational data allows to draw conclusions from data when randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted. Although the identification of structural causal models (SCM) and the calculation of structural coefficients has received much attention, a key requirement for valid causal inference is that conclusions are drawn based on the true data-generating model.MethodsIt remains widely unknown how large the probability is to reject the true structural causal model when observational data from it is sampled. The latter probability - the causal false-positive risk - is crucial, as rejection of the true causal model can induce bias in the estimation of causal effects. In this paper, the widely used causal models of confounders and colliders are studied regarding their causal false-positive risk in linear Markovian models. A simulation study is carried out which investigates the causal false-positive risk in Gaussian linear Markovian models. Therefore, the testable implications of the DAG corresponding to confounders and colliders are analyzed from a Bayesian perspective. Furthermore, the induced bias in estimating the structural coefficients and causal effects is studied.ResultsResults show that the false-positive risk of rejecting a true SCM of even simple building blocks like confounders and colliders is substantial. Importantly, estimation of average, direct and indirect causal effects can become strongly biased if a true model is rejected. The causal false-positive risk may thus serve as an indicator or proxy for the induced bias.ConclusionWhile the identification of structural coefficients and testable implications of causal models have been studied rigorously in the literature, this paper shows that causal inference also must develop new concepts for controlling the causal false-positive risk. Although a high risk cannot be equated with a substantial bias, it is indicative of the induced bias. The latter fact calls for the development of more advanced risk measures for committing a causal type I error in causal inference.

Dataset Information

Determining organ weight toxicity with Bayesian causal models: Improving on the analysis of relative organ weights.

Publications

Determining organ weight toxicity with Bayesian causal models: Improving on the analysis of relative organ weights.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets