Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25938522›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

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

Anastasia Chalkidou, Michael J O'Doherty, Paul K Marsden

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 192 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
192citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

192 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Radiomic Features: A Systematic Review.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

132 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anastasia ChalkidouDivision of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Kings College London 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, St. Thomas Hospital, SE1 7EH, London, United Kingdom.
Michael J O'DohertyDivision of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Kings College London 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, St. Thomas Hospital, SE1 7EH, London, United Kingdom.
Paul K MarsdenDivision of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, Kings College London 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, St. Thomas Hospital, SE1 7EH, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA 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.

methodsFor 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.

resultsFifteen 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.

conclusionsWe 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.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedArea Under CurveFalse Positive ReactionsHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateProbabilityROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID25938522
PMCPMC4418696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.