Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers1

Daniel C. Sullivan; Nancy A. Obuchowski; Larry G. Kessler; David L. Raunig; Constantine Gatsonis; Erich P. Huang; Marina Kondratovich; Lisa M. McShane; Anthony P. Reeves; Daniel P. Barboriak; Alexander R. Guimaraes; Richard L. Wahl

doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142202

Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers¹

Daniel C. Sullivan, Nancy A. Obuchowski, Larry G. Kessler, David L. Raunig, Constantine Gatsonis, Erich P. Huang, Marina Kondratovich, Lisa M. McShane, Anthony P. Reeves, Daniel P. Barboriak, Alexander R. Guimaraes, Richard L. Wahl

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

260 Scopus citations

Abstract

Although investigators in the imaging community have been active in developing and evaluating quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs), the development and implementation of QIBs have been hampered by the inconsistent or incorrect use of terminology or methods for technical performance and statistical concepts. Technical performance is an assessment of how a test performs in reference objects or subjects under controlled conditions. In this article, some of the relevant statistical concepts are reviewed, methods that can be used for evaluating and comparing QIBs are described, and some of the technical performance issues related to imaging biomarkers are discussed. More consistent and correct use of terminology and study design principles will improve clinical research, advance regulatory science, and foster better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	813-825
Number of pages	13
Journal	Radiology
Volume	277
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142202
State	Published - Dec 2015

Access to Document

10.1148/radiol.2015142202

Cite this

@article{b7de64b947284673ab0009028d55ed1e,

title = "Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers1",

abstract = "Although investigators in the imaging community have been active in developing and evaluating quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs), the development and implementation of QIBs have been hampered by the inconsistent or incorrect use of terminology or methods for technical performance and statistical concepts. Technical performance is an assessment of how a test performs in reference objects or subjects under controlled conditions. In this article, some of the relevant statistical concepts are reviewed, methods that can be used for evaluating and comparing QIBs are described, and some of the technical performance issues related to imaging biomarkers are discussed. More consistent and correct use of terminology and study design principles will improve clinical research, advance regulatory science, and foster better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.",

author = "Sullivan, {Daniel C.} and Obuchowski, {Nancy A.} and Kessler, {Larry G.} and Raunig, {David L.} and Constantine Gatsonis and Huang, {Erich P.} and Marina Kondratovich and McShane, {Lisa M.} and Reeves, {Anthony P.} and Barboriak, {Daniel P.} and Guimaraes, {Alexander R.} and Wahl, {Richard L.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} RSNA, 2015.",

year = "2015",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1148/radiol.2015142202",

language = "English",

volume = "277",

pages = "813--825",

journal = "Radiology",

issn = "0033-8419",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers1

AU - Sullivan, Daniel C.

AU - Obuchowski, Nancy A.

AU - Kessler, Larry G.

AU - Raunig, David L.

AU - Gatsonis, Constantine

AU - Huang, Erich P.

AU - Kondratovich, Marina

AU - McShane, Lisa M.

AU - Reeves, Anthony P.

AU - Barboriak, Daniel P.

AU - Guimaraes, Alexander R.

AU - Wahl, Richard L.

PY - 2015/12

Y1 - 2015/12

N2 - Although investigators in the imaging community have been active in developing and evaluating quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs), the development and implementation of QIBs have been hampered by the inconsistent or incorrect use of terminology or methods for technical performance and statistical concepts. Technical performance is an assessment of how a test performs in reference objects or subjects under controlled conditions. In this article, some of the relevant statistical concepts are reviewed, methods that can be used for evaluating and comparing QIBs are described, and some of the technical performance issues related to imaging biomarkers are discussed. More consistent and correct use of terminology and study design principles will improve clinical research, advance regulatory science, and foster better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.

AB - Although investigators in the imaging community have been active in developing and evaluating quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs), the development and implementation of QIBs have been hampered by the inconsistent or incorrect use of terminology or methods for technical performance and statistical concepts. Technical performance is an assessment of how a test performs in reference objects or subjects under controlled conditions. In this article, some of the relevant statistical concepts are reviewed, methods that can be used for evaluating and comparing QIBs are described, and some of the technical performance issues related to imaging biomarkers are discussed. More consistent and correct use of terminology and study design principles will improve clinical research, advance regulatory science, and foster better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948737592&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2015142202

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2015142202

M3 - Article

C2 - 26267831

AN - SCOPUS:84948737592

SN - 0033-8419

VL - 277

SP - 813

EP - 825

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

IS - 3

ER -

Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers¹

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this