Why the study?
Measurement error in cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers may cause variability that reduces the apparent diagnostic effectiveness for Alzheimer's disease, necessitating evaluation of analysis methods.
Observational (n=519)
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Single-replicate CSF tau assays may bias AD diagnostics in high-variability data; leaves open whether maximum likelihood adjustment should enter routine panels.
Studies of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD) have indicated that much of the variability observed in the biomarkers may be due to measurement error. Biomarkers are often obtained with measurement error, which may make the diagnostic biomarker appear less effective than it truly is. In the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database, technical replicates of CSF biomarkers are available; the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center database contains longitudinal replicates of CSF biomarkers. We focus on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as the measure of diagnostic effectiveness for differentiating AD from normal cognition using CSF biomarkers and compare AUC estimates obtained by a more standard, naïve method (which uses a single observation per subject and ignores measurement error) to a maximum likelihood (ML) based method (which uses all replicates per subject and adjusts for measurement error). The choice of analysis method depends upon the noise to signal ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the measurement error variability relative to the true biomarker variability); moderate to high ratios may significantly bias the naïve AUC estimate, and the ML-based method would be preferred. The noise to signal ratios were low for the ADNI biomarkers but high for the tTau and pTau biomarkers in NACC. Correspondingly, the naïve and ML-based AUC estimates were nearly identical in the ADNI data but dissimilar for the tTau and pTau biomarkers in the NACC data. Therefore, using the naïve method is adequate for analysis of CSF biomarkers in the ADNI study, but the ML method is recommended for the NACC data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
White et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Alzheimer's disease (n=519). Maximum likelihood (ML) method using all replicates vs. Naïve method using a single replicate was evaluated on Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for differentiating AD from normal cognition.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: