44 research outputs found

    The likelihood ratio and its graphical representation

    Get PDF
    Diagnostic tests are important clinical tools. Bayes’ theorem and Bayesian approach are important methods for interpreting test results. The Bayesian factor, the so-called likelihood ratio, has not always been well-understood. In this article, we try to discuss the likelihood ratio and its value for a specific test result, a positive or negative test result, and a range of test results, along with their graphical representations

    The apparent prevalence, the true prevalence

    Get PDF
    Serologic tests are important for conducting seroepidemiologic and prevalence studies. However, the tests used are typically imperfect and produce false-positive and false-negative results. This is why the seropositive rate (apparent prevalence) does not typically reflect the true prevalence of the disease or condition of interest. Herein, we discuss the way the true prevalence could be derived from the apparent prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity. A computer simulation based on the Monte-Carlo algorithm was also used to further examine a situation where the measured test sensitivity and specificity are also uncertain. We then complete our review with a real example. The apparent prevalence observed in many prevalence studies published in medical literature is a biased estimation and cannot be interpreted correctly unless we correct the value

    Determining the SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay test performance indices based on the test results frequency distribution

    Get PDF
    Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is known to induce robust antibody response in most of the affected individuals. The objective of the study was to determine if we can harvest the test sensitivity and specificity of a commercial serologic immunoassay merely based on the frequency distribution of the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G concentrations measured in a population-based seroprevalence study. The current study was conducted on a subset of a previously published dataset from the canton of Geneva. Data were taken from two non-consecutive weeks (774 samples from May 4-9, and 658 from June 1-6, 2020). Assuming that the frequency distribution of the measured SARS-CoV-2 IgG is binormal (an educated guess), using a non-linear regression, we decomposed the distribution into its two Gaussian components. Based on the obtained regression coefficients, we calculated the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the sensitivity and specificity, and the most appropriate cut-off value for the test. The obtained results were compared with those obtained from a validity study and a seroprevalence population-based study. The model could predict more than 90% of the variance observed in the SARS-CoV-2 IgG distribution. The results derived from our model were in good agreement with the results obtained from the seroprevalence and validity studies. Altogether 138 of 1432 people had SARS-CoV-2 IgG ≥ 0.90, the cut-off value which maximized the Youden’s index. This translates into a true prevalence of 7.0% (95% confidence interval 5.4% to 8.6%), which is in keeping with the estimated prevalence of 7.7% derived from our model. Our model can provide the true prevalence. Having an educated guess about the distribution of test results, the test performance indices can be derived with acceptable accuracy merely based on the test results frequency distribution without the need for conducting a validity study and comparing the test results against a gold-standard test

    LncRNA–miRNA–mRNA Networks of Gastrointestinal Cancers Representing Common and Specific LncRNAs and mRNAs

    Get PDF
    Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are responsible for approximately half of cancer-related deaths, highlighting the need for the identification of distinct and common features in their clinicopathological characteristics. Long ncRNA (lncRNAs), which are involved in competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) networks with critical roles in biological processes, constitute a substantial number of non-coding RNAs. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the similarities and differences in the ceRNA networks of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-GI cancers. We performed a comprehensive bioinformatics analysis of ceRNA networks for TCGA-GI cancers in terms of the deferential mRNA, lncRNA, and miRNA expression levels, ceRNA networks, overall survival analysis, correlation analysis, pathological cancer stages, and gene set enrichment analysis. Our study revealed several common and distinct mRNAs and lncRNAs with prognostic values in these networks. It was specifically noteworthy that MAGI2-AS3 lncRNA was found to be shared in almost all GI cancers. Moreover, the most common shared mRNAs between GI cancers were MEIS1, PPP1R3C, ADAMTSL3, RIPOR2, and MYLK. For each cancer ceRNA network, we found that the expression level of a number of lncRNAs and mRNAs was specific. Furthermore, our study provided compelling evidence that several genes, most notably KDELC1, can act as novel proto-oncogenes in cancers. This, in turn, can highlight their role as new prognostic and therapeutic targets. Moreover, we found cell cycle and extracellular matrix structural constituent as the top shared KEGG and molecular function, respectively, among GI cancers. Our study revealed several known lncRNAs and known and unknown mRNAs in GI cancers with diagnostic and prognostic value

    The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

    Get PDF
    Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

    How much precision in reporting statistics is enough?

    No full text

    Shuffle randomization

    No full text
    corecore