Quantification of Difference in Nonselectivity Between In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices.

IF 1.3 3区 生物学 Q4 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Pernille Kjeilen Fauskanger, Sverre Sandberg, Jesper Johansen, Thomas Keller, Jeffrey Budd, W Greg Miller, Anne Stavelin, Vincent Delatour, Mauro Panteghini, Bård Støve
{"title":"Quantification of Difference in Nonselectivity Between In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices.","authors":"Pernille Kjeilen Fauskanger, Sverre Sandberg, Jesper Johansen, Thomas Keller, Jeffrey Budd, W Greg Miller, Anne Stavelin, Vincent Delatour, Mauro Panteghini, Bård Støve","doi":"10.1002/bimj.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Correct measurement results from in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices (MD) are crucial for optimal patient care. The performance of IVD-MDs is often assessed through method comparison studies. Such studies can be compromised by the influence of various factors. The effect of these factors must be examined in every method comparison study, for example, nonselectivity differences between compared IVD-MDs are examined. Historically, selectivity or nonselectivity has been defined as a qualitative term. However, a quantification of nonselectivity differences between IVD-MDs is needed. This paper fills this need by introducing a novel measure for quantifying differences in nonselectivity (DINS) between a pair of IVD-MDs. Assuming one of the IVD-MDs involved in the comparison exhibits high selectivity for the analyte, it becomes feasible to quantify nonselectivity in the other IVD-MD by employing this DINS measure. Our approach leverages elements from univariate ordinary least squares regression and incorporates repeatability IVD-MD variances, resulting in a normalized measure. We also introduce a plug-in estimator for this measure, which is notably linked to the average relative increase in prediction interval widths attributable to DINS. This connection is exploited to establish a criterion for identifying excessive DINS utilizing a proof-of-hazard approach. Utilizing Monte Carlo simulations, we investigate how the estimator relates to population characteristics like DINS and heteroskedasticity. We find that DINS impacts the mean, variance, and 99th percentile of the estimator, while heteroskedasticity affects only the latter two, and to a considerably smaller extent compared to DINS. Importantly, the size of the study design modulates these effects. We also confirm, when using clinical data, that DINS between pairs of IVD-MDs influence the estimator correspondingly to those of simulated data. Thus, the proposed estimator serves as an effective metric for quantifying DINS between IVD-MDs and helping to determine the quality of a method comparison study.</p>","PeriodicalId":55360,"journal":{"name":"Biometrical Journal","volume":"67 1","pages":"e70032"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695778/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biometrical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.70032","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Correct measurement results from in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices (MD) are crucial for optimal patient care. The performance of IVD-MDs is often assessed through method comparison studies. Such studies can be compromised by the influence of various factors. The effect of these factors must be examined in every method comparison study, for example, nonselectivity differences between compared IVD-MDs are examined. Historically, selectivity or nonselectivity has been defined as a qualitative term. However, a quantification of nonselectivity differences between IVD-MDs is needed. This paper fills this need by introducing a novel measure for quantifying differences in nonselectivity (DINS) between a pair of IVD-MDs. Assuming one of the IVD-MDs involved in the comparison exhibits high selectivity for the analyte, it becomes feasible to quantify nonselectivity in the other IVD-MD by employing this DINS measure. Our approach leverages elements from univariate ordinary least squares regression and incorporates repeatability IVD-MD variances, resulting in a normalized measure. We also introduce a plug-in estimator for this measure, which is notably linked to the average relative increase in prediction interval widths attributable to DINS. This connection is exploited to establish a criterion for identifying excessive DINS utilizing a proof-of-hazard approach. Utilizing Monte Carlo simulations, we investigate how the estimator relates to population characteristics like DINS and heteroskedasticity. We find that DINS impacts the mean, variance, and 99th percentile of the estimator, while heteroskedasticity affects only the latter two, and to a considerably smaller extent compared to DINS. Importantly, the size of the study design modulates these effects. We also confirm, when using clinical data, that DINS between pairs of IVD-MDs influence the estimator correspondingly to those of simulated data. Thus, the proposed estimator serves as an effective metric for quantifying DINS between IVD-MDs and helping to determine the quality of a method comparison study.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biometrical Journal
Biometrical Journal 生物-数学与计算生物学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
119
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biometrical Journal publishes papers on statistical methods and their applications in life sciences including medicine, environmental sciences and agriculture. Methodological developments should be motivated by an interesting and relevant problem from these areas. Ideally the manuscript should include a description of the problem and a section detailing the application of the new methodology to the problem. Case studies, review articles and letters to the editors are also welcome. Papers containing only extensive mathematical theory are not suitable for publication in Biometrical Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信