IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0124165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

False Discovery Rates in PET and CT Studies with Texture Features: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasia Chalkidou
  • Michael J O’Doherty
  • Paul K Marsden

Abstract

Purpose: A number of recent publications have proposed that a family of image-derived indices, called texture features, can predict clinical outcome in patients with cancer. However, the investigation of multiple indices on a single data set can lead to significant inflation of type-I errors. We report a systematic review of the type-I error inflation in such studies and review the evidence regarding associations between patient outcome and texture features derived from positron emission tomography (PET) or computed tomography (CT) images. Methods: For study identification PubMed and Scopus were searched (1/2000–9/2013) using combinations of the keywords texture, prognostic, predictive and cancer. Studies were divided into three categories according to the sources of the type-I error inflation and the use or not of an independent validation dataset. For each study, the true type-I error probability and the adjusted level of significance were estimated using the optimum cut-off approach correction, and the Benjamini-Hochberg method. To demonstrate explicitly the variable selection bias in these studies, we re-analyzed data from one of the published studies, but using 100 random variables substituted for the original image-derived indices. The significance of the random variables as potential predictors of outcome was examined using the analysis methods used in the identified studies. Results: Fifteen studies were identified. After applying appropriate statistical corrections, an average type-I error probability of 76% (range: 34–99%) was estimated with the majority of published results not reaching statistical significance. Only 3/15 studies used a validation dataset. For the 100 random variables examined, 10% proved to be significant predictors of survival when subjected to ROC and multiple hypothesis testing analysis. Conclusions: We found insufficient evidence to support a relationship between PET or CT texture features and patient survival. Further fit for purpose validation of these image-derived biomarkers should be supported by appropriate biological and statistical evidence before their association with patient outcome is investigated in prospective studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasia Chalkidou & Michael J O’Doherty & Paul K Marsden, 2015. "False Discovery Rates in PET and CT Studies with Texture Features: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0124165
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124165
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124165&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0124165?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dean Palejev & Mladen Savov, 2021. "On the Convergence of the Benjamini–Hochberg Procedure," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(17), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Ivan S Klyuzhin & Jessie F Fu & Andy Hong & Matthew Sacheli & Nikolay Shenkov & Michele Matarazzo & Arman Rahmim & A Jon Stoessl & Vesna Sossi, 2018. "Data-driven, voxel-based analysis of brain PET images: Application of PCA and LASSO methods to visualize and quantify patterns of neurodegeneration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0124165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.