44 research outputs found
The likelihood ratio and its graphical representation
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
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
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
Recommended from our members
Association between rs2303861 polymorphism in CD82 gene and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a preliminary case-control study
Aim To investigate the genetic factors involved in the development
of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and
its sequelae in a Middle Eastern population.
Methods This genetic case-control association study, conducted
in 2018, enrolled 30 patients with NAFLD and 30
control individuals matched for age, sex, and body mass
index. After quality control measures, entire exonic regions
of 3654 genes associated with human diseases were sequenced.
Allelic association test and enrichment analysis
of the significant genetic variants were performed.
Results The association analysis was conducted on 27
NAFLD patients and 28 controls. When Bonferroni correction
was applied, NAFLD was significantly associated
with rs2303861, a variant located in the CD82 gene
(P = 2.49 × 10−7, adjusted P = 0.0059). When we used Benjamini-
Hochberg adjustment for correction, NAFLD was
significantly associated with six more variants. Enrichment
analysis of the genes corresponding to all the seven
variants showed significant enrichment for miR-193b-5p
(P = 0.00004, adjusted P = 0.00922).
Conclusion A variant on CD82 gene and a miR-193b expression
dysregulation may have a role in the development
and progression of NAFLD and its sequela
LncRNA–miRNA–mRNA Networks of Gastrointestinal Cancers Representing Common and Specific LncRNAs and mRNAs
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
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
Recommended from our members
Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation