4.6 Article

Quantitative imaging biomarkers: A review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment

Journal

STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 27-67

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0962280214537344

Keywords

quantitative imaging; imaging biomarkers; reliability; linearity; bias; precision; repeatability; reproducibility; agreement

Funding

  1. Radiological Society of North America
  2. NIH/NIBIB [HHSN268201000050C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Technological developments and greater rigor in the quantitative measurement of biological features in medical images have given rise to an increased interest in using quantitative imaging biomarkers to measure changes in these features. Critical to the performance of a quantitative imaging biomarker in preclinical or clinical settings are three primary metrology areas of interest: measurement linearity and bias, repeatability, and the ability to consistently reproduce equivalent results when conditions change, as would be expected in any clinical trial. Unfortunately, performance studies to date differ greatly in designs, analysis method, and metrics used to assess a quantitative imaging biomarker for clinical use. It is therefore difficult or not possible to integrate results from different studies or to use reported results to design studies. The Radiological Society of North America and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance with technical, radiological, and statistical experts developed a set of technical performance analysis methods, metrics, and study designs that provide terminology, metrics, and methods consistent with widely accepted metrological standards. This document provides a consistent framework for the conduct and evaluation of quantitative imaging biomarker performance studies so that results from multiple studies can be compared, contrasted, or combined.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available