Cargando…

A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis

A large body of the published literature in nuclear image analysis do not evaluate their findings on an independent data set. Hence, if several features are evaluated on a limited data set over‐optimistic results are easily achieved. In order to find features that separate different outcome classes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schulerud, Helene, Kristensen, Gunner B., Liestøl, Knut, Vlatkovic, Liljana, Reith, Albrecht, Albregtsen, Fritz, Danielsen, Hàvard E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 1998
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9692681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/436382
_version_ 1782396151786373120
author Schulerud, Helene
Kristensen, Gunner B.
Liestøl, Knut
Vlatkovic, Liljana
Reith, Albrecht
Albregtsen, Fritz
Danielsen, Hàvard E.
author_facet Schulerud, Helene
Kristensen, Gunner B.
Liestøl, Knut
Vlatkovic, Liljana
Reith, Albrecht
Albregtsen, Fritz
Danielsen, Hàvard E.
author_sort Schulerud, Helene
collection PubMed
description A large body of the published literature in nuclear image analysis do not evaluate their findings on an independent data set. Hence, if several features are evaluated on a limited data set over‐optimistic results are easily achieved. In order to find features that separate different outcome classes of interest, statistical evaluation of the nuclear features must be performed. Furthermore, to classify an unknown sample using image analysis, a classification rule must be designed and evaluated. Unfortunately, statistical evaluation methods used in the literature of nuclear image analysis are often inappropriate. The present article discusses some of the difficulties in statistical evaluation of nuclear image analysis, and a study of cervical cancer is presented in order to illustrate the problems. In conclusion, some of the most severe errors in nuclear image analysis occur in analysis of a large feature set, including few patients, without confirming the results on an independent data set. To select features, Bonferroni correction for multiple test is recommended, together with a standard feature set selection method. Furthermore, we consider that the minimum requirement of performing statistical evaluation in nuclear image analysis is confirmation of the results on an independent data set. We suggest that a consensus of how to perform evaluation of diagnostic and prognostic features is necessary, in order to develop reliable tools for clinical use, based on nuclear image analysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4612271
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1998
publisher IOS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46122712016-01-12 A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis Schulerud, Helene Kristensen, Gunner B. Liestøl, Knut Vlatkovic, Liljana Reith, Albrecht Albregtsen, Fritz Danielsen, Hàvard E. Anal Cell Pathol Other A large body of the published literature in nuclear image analysis do not evaluate their findings on an independent data set. Hence, if several features are evaluated on a limited data set over‐optimistic results are easily achieved. In order to find features that separate different outcome classes of interest, statistical evaluation of the nuclear features must be performed. Furthermore, to classify an unknown sample using image analysis, a classification rule must be designed and evaluated. Unfortunately, statistical evaluation methods used in the literature of nuclear image analysis are often inappropriate. The present article discusses some of the difficulties in statistical evaluation of nuclear image analysis, and a study of cervical cancer is presented in order to illustrate the problems. In conclusion, some of the most severe errors in nuclear image analysis occur in analysis of a large feature set, including few patients, without confirming the results on an independent data set. To select features, Bonferroni correction for multiple test is recommended, together with a standard feature set selection method. Furthermore, we consider that the minimum requirement of performing statistical evaluation in nuclear image analysis is confirmation of the results on an independent data set. We suggest that a consensus of how to perform evaluation of diagnostic and prognostic features is necessary, in order to develop reliable tools for clinical use, based on nuclear image analysis. IOS Press 1998 1998-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4612271/ /pubmed/9692681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/436382 Text en Copyright © 1998 Hindawi Publishing Corporation.
spellingShingle Other
Schulerud, Helene
Kristensen, Gunner B.
Liestøl, Knut
Vlatkovic, Liljana
Reith, Albrecht
Albregtsen, Fritz
Danielsen, Hàvard E.
A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis
title A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis
title_full A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis
title_fullStr A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis
title_full_unstemmed A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis
title_short A Review of Caveats in Statistical Nuclear Image Analysis
title_sort review of caveats in statistical nuclear image analysis
topic Other
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9692681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/436382
work_keys_str_mv AT schulerudhelene areviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT kristensengunnerb areviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT liestølknut areviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT vlatkovicliljana areviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT reithalbrecht areviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT albregtsenfritz areviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT danielsenhavarde areviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT schulerudhelene reviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT kristensengunnerb reviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT liestølknut reviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT vlatkovicliljana reviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT reithalbrecht reviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT albregtsenfritz reviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis
AT danielsenhavarde reviewofcaveatsinstatisticalnuclearimageanalysis