Cargando…

The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery

Over the past decade, biomarker discovery has become a key goal in psychiatry to aid in the more reliable diagnosis and prognosis of heterogeneous psychiatric conditions and the development of tailored therapies. Nevertheless, the prevailing statistical approach is still the mean group comparison be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Loth, Eva, Ahmad, Jumana, Chatham, Chris, López, Beatriz, Carter, Ben, Crawley, Daisy, Oakley, Bethany, Hayward, Hannah, Cooke, Jennifer, San José Cáceres, Antonia, Bzdok, Danilo, Jones, Emily, Charman, Tony, Beckmann, Christian, Bourgeron, Thomas, Toro, Roberto, Buitelaar, Jan, Murphy, Declan, Dumas, Guillaume
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8601419/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34793435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009477
_version_ 1784601346016542720
author Loth, Eva
Ahmad, Jumana
Chatham, Chris
López, Beatriz
Carter, Ben
Crawley, Daisy
Oakley, Bethany
Hayward, Hannah
Cooke, Jennifer
San José Cáceres, Antonia
Bzdok, Danilo
Jones, Emily
Charman, Tony
Beckmann, Christian
Bourgeron, Thomas
Toro, Roberto
Buitelaar, Jan
Murphy, Declan
Dumas, Guillaume
author_facet Loth, Eva
Ahmad, Jumana
Chatham, Chris
López, Beatriz
Carter, Ben
Crawley, Daisy
Oakley, Bethany
Hayward, Hannah
Cooke, Jennifer
San José Cáceres, Antonia
Bzdok, Danilo
Jones, Emily
Charman, Tony
Beckmann, Christian
Bourgeron, Thomas
Toro, Roberto
Buitelaar, Jan
Murphy, Declan
Dumas, Guillaume
author_sort Loth, Eva
collection PubMed
description Over the past decade, biomarker discovery has become a key goal in psychiatry to aid in the more reliable diagnosis and prognosis of heterogeneous psychiatric conditions and the development of tailored therapies. Nevertheless, the prevailing statistical approach is still the mean group comparison between “cases” and “controls,” which tends to ignore within-group variability. In this educational article, we used empirical data simulations to investigate how effect size, sample size, and the shape of distributions impact the interpretation of mean group differences for biomarker discovery. We then applied these statistical criteria to evaluate biomarker discovery in one area of psychiatric research—autism research. Across the most influential areas of autism research, effect size estimates ranged from small (d = 0.21, anatomical structure) to medium (d = 0.36 electrophysiology, d = 0.5, eye-tracking) to large (d = 1.1 theory of mind). We show that in normal distributions, this translates to approximately 45% to 63% of cases performing within 1 standard deviation (SD) of the typical range, i.e., they do not have a deficit/atypicality in a statistical sense. For a measure to have diagnostic utility as defined by 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity, Cohen’s d of 1.66 is required, with still 40% of cases falling within 1 SD. However, in both normal and nonnormal distributions, 1 (skewness) or 2 (platykurtic, bimodal) biologically plausible subgroups may exist despite small or even nonsignificant mean group differences. This conclusion drastically contrasts the way mean group differences are frequently reported. Over 95% of studies omitted the “on average” when summarising their findings in their abstracts (“autistic people have deficits in X”), which can be misleading as it implies that the group-level difference applies to all individuals in that group. We outline practical approaches and steps for researchers to explore mean group comparisons for the discovery of stratification biomarkers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8601419
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86014192021-11-19 The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery Loth, Eva Ahmad, Jumana Chatham, Chris López, Beatriz Carter, Ben Crawley, Daisy Oakley, Bethany Hayward, Hannah Cooke, Jennifer San José Cáceres, Antonia Bzdok, Danilo Jones, Emily Charman, Tony Beckmann, Christian Bourgeron, Thomas Toro, Roberto Buitelaar, Jan Murphy, Declan Dumas, Guillaume PLoS Comput Biol Education Over the past decade, biomarker discovery has become a key goal in psychiatry to aid in the more reliable diagnosis and prognosis of heterogeneous psychiatric conditions and the development of tailored therapies. Nevertheless, the prevailing statistical approach is still the mean group comparison between “cases” and “controls,” which tends to ignore within-group variability. In this educational article, we used empirical data simulations to investigate how effect size, sample size, and the shape of distributions impact the interpretation of mean group differences for biomarker discovery. We then applied these statistical criteria to evaluate biomarker discovery in one area of psychiatric research—autism research. Across the most influential areas of autism research, effect size estimates ranged from small (d = 0.21, anatomical structure) to medium (d = 0.36 electrophysiology, d = 0.5, eye-tracking) to large (d = 1.1 theory of mind). We show that in normal distributions, this translates to approximately 45% to 63% of cases performing within 1 standard deviation (SD) of the typical range, i.e., they do not have a deficit/atypicality in a statistical sense. For a measure to have diagnostic utility as defined by 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity, Cohen’s d of 1.66 is required, with still 40% of cases falling within 1 SD. However, in both normal and nonnormal distributions, 1 (skewness) or 2 (platykurtic, bimodal) biologically plausible subgroups may exist despite small or even nonsignificant mean group differences. This conclusion drastically contrasts the way mean group differences are frequently reported. Over 95% of studies omitted the “on average” when summarising their findings in their abstracts (“autistic people have deficits in X”), which can be misleading as it implies that the group-level difference applies to all individuals in that group. We outline practical approaches and steps for researchers to explore mean group comparisons for the discovery of stratification biomarkers. Public Library of Science 2021-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8601419/ /pubmed/34793435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009477 Text en © 2021 Loth et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Education
Loth, Eva
Ahmad, Jumana
Chatham, Chris
López, Beatriz
Carter, Ben
Crawley, Daisy
Oakley, Bethany
Hayward, Hannah
Cooke, Jennifer
San José Cáceres, Antonia
Bzdok, Danilo
Jones, Emily
Charman, Tony
Beckmann, Christian
Bourgeron, Thomas
Toro, Roberto
Buitelaar, Jan
Murphy, Declan
Dumas, Guillaume
The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery
title The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery
title_full The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery
title_fullStr The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery
title_full_unstemmed The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery
title_short The meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery
title_sort meaning of significant mean group differences for biomarker discovery
topic Education
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8601419/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34793435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009477
work_keys_str_mv AT lotheva themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT ahmadjumana themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT chathamchris themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT lopezbeatriz themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT carterben themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT crawleydaisy themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT oakleybethany themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT haywardhannah themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT cookejennifer themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT sanjosecaceresantonia themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT bzdokdanilo themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT jonesemily themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT charmantony themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT beckmannchristian themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT bourgeronthomas themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT tororoberto themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT buitelaarjan themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT murphydeclan themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT dumasguillaume themeaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT lotheva meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT ahmadjumana meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT chathamchris meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT lopezbeatriz meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT carterben meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT crawleydaisy meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT oakleybethany meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT haywardhannah meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT cookejennifer meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT sanjosecaceresantonia meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT bzdokdanilo meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT jonesemily meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT charmantony meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT beckmannchristian meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT bourgeronthomas meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT tororoberto meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT buitelaarjan meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT murphydeclan meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery
AT dumasguillaume meaningofsignificantmeangroupdifferencesforbiomarkerdiscovery