76 research outputs found

    Presenting medical statistics from proposal to publication

    No full text
    Designed for researchers presenting medical statistics for publication, this guide emphasises the principles of good presentation through examples. It contains tips, information boxes and figures, as well as references for the statistical methods used. It also presents the different stages of the research process

    Detection of Disease Genes by Use of Family Data. II. Application to Nuclear Families

    Get PDF
    Two likelihood-based score statistics are used to detect association between a disease and a single diallelic polymorphism, on the basis of data from arbitrary types of nuclear families. The first statistic, the nonfounder statistic, extends the transmission/disequilibrium test to accommodate affected and unaffected offspring and missing parental genotypes. The second statistic, the founder statistic, compares observed or inferred parental genotypes with those of some reference population. In this comparison, the genotypes of affected parents or of those with many affected offspring are weighted more heavily than are the genotypes of unaffected parents or of those with few affected offspring. Genotypes of single unrelated cases and controls can be included in this analysis. We illustrate the two statistics by applying them to data on a polymorphism of the SDR5A2 gene in nuclear families with multiple cases of prostate cancer. We also use simulations to compare the power of the nonfounder statistic with that of the score statistic, on the basis of the conditional logistic regression of offspring genotypes

    Diagnostic discrepancies between second-opinion and referring pathology reports of neuroendocrine tumors.

    No full text
    e15011 Background: The nomenclature and histologic classification schemes for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have historically been heterogeneous and inconsistent. However, clinicians require specific descriptors to determine treatment plans for patients. In 2010, Klimstra, et al. published a set of NET pathology reporting guidelines. Using these guidelines, we undertook a systematic evaluation of discrepancies between referring versus Stanford second-opinion NET pathology reports. Methods: We developed a cohort ofall NET cases seen at Stanford University Hospital between April 1998 and December 2012 with available Stanford and referring pathology reports for the same specimen to identify the discrepancies between their clinical diagnoses. Results: Of 170 cases, histological diagnoses were discrepant in 79% of the reports; 89 (66%) of which were clinically insignificant, and 46 (34%) clinically significant. Stanford used 14 unique terms for histological description, and referring institutions used 49 unique terms. Grade, mitotic index (MI), and Ki67 were among the variables examined; they were not reported (NR) from the majority of cases in one or both reports, yet more likely to be included in the Stanford report. Grade was NR in one or both reports in 152 cases (89%); of the 18 cases reporting grade in both reports, 3 (2%) were discrepant. MI was NR in one or both reports in 128 cases (75%); of the 42 cases reporting MI in both reports, 27 (16%) were discrepant. Ki67 was NR in one or both reports in 153 cases (90%); of the 17 cases reporting Ki67 in both reports, 12 (7%) were discrepant. Reporting was found to improve over time for these variables (five-year blocks from 1998-2012). There was a trend towards improved reporting from academic hospitals (vs. non-academic hospitals) and by Stanford NET pathology experts (vs. general pathologists). Conclusions: Clinically relevant differences were frequently found between Stanford and referring pathology reports for NETs. Future studies of NET pathology discrepancies are warranted to allow additional time for adoption of the 2010 guidelines
    corecore