Jake T Murkin, Hope E Amos, Daniel W Brough, Karl D Turley
{"title":"计算机模拟表明,在肿瘤测量过程中,用户的可变性会影响体内治疗效果的结果。","authors":"Jake T Murkin, Hope E Amos, Daniel W Brough, Karl D Turley","doi":"10.1177/11769351221139257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>User measurement bias during subcutaneous tumor measurement is a source of variation in preclinical in vivo studies. We investigated whether this user variability could impact efficacy study outcomes, in the form of the false negative result rate when comparing treated and control groups. Two tumor measurement methods were compared; calipers which rely on manual measurement, and an automatic 3D and thermal imaging device. Tumor growth curve data were used to create an in silico efficacy study with control and treated groups. Before applying user variability, treatment group tumor volumes were statistically different to the control group. Utilizing data collected from 15 different users across 9 in vivo studies, user measurement variability was computed for both methods and simulation was used to investigate its impact on the in silico study outcome. User variability produced a false negative result in 0.7% to 18.5% of simulated studies when using calipers, depending on treatment efficacy. When using an imaging device with lower user variability this was reduced to 0.0% to 2.6%, demonstrating that user variability impacts study outcomes and the ability to detect treatment effect. Reducing variability in efficacy studies can increase confidence in efficacy study outcomes without altering group sizes. By using a measurement device with lower user variability, the chance of missing a therapeutic effect can be reduced and time and resources spent pursuing false results could be saved. This improvement in data quality is of particular interest in discovery and dosing studies, where being able to detect small differences between groups is crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":35418,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Informatics","volume":" ","pages":"11769351221139257"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0a/81/10.1177_11769351221139257.PMC9716635.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Silico Modeling Demonstrates that User Variability During Tumor Measurement Can Affect In Vivo Therapeutic Efficacy Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Jake T Murkin, Hope E Amos, Daniel W Brough, Karl D Turley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11769351221139257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>User measurement bias during subcutaneous tumor measurement is a source of variation in preclinical in vivo studies. We investigated whether this user variability could impact efficacy study outcomes, in the form of the false negative result rate when comparing treated and control groups. Two tumor measurement methods were compared; calipers which rely on manual measurement, and an automatic 3D and thermal imaging device. Tumor growth curve data were used to create an in silico efficacy study with control and treated groups. Before applying user variability, treatment group tumor volumes were statistically different to the control group. Utilizing data collected from 15 different users across 9 in vivo studies, user measurement variability was computed for both methods and simulation was used to investigate its impact on the in silico study outcome. User variability produced a false negative result in 0.7% to 18.5% of simulated studies when using calipers, depending on treatment efficacy. When using an imaging device with lower user variability this was reduced to 0.0% to 2.6%, demonstrating that user variability impacts study outcomes and the ability to detect treatment effect. Reducing variability in efficacy studies can increase confidence in efficacy study outcomes without altering group sizes. By using a measurement device with lower user variability, the chance of missing a therapeutic effect can be reduced and time and resources spent pursuing false results could be saved. This improvement in data quality is of particular interest in discovery and dosing studies, where being able to detect small differences between groups is crucial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Informatics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"11769351221139257\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0a/81/10.1177_11769351221139257.PMC9716635.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11769351221139257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11769351221139257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
In Silico Modeling Demonstrates that User Variability During Tumor Measurement Can Affect In Vivo Therapeutic Efficacy Outcomes.
User measurement bias during subcutaneous tumor measurement is a source of variation in preclinical in vivo studies. We investigated whether this user variability could impact efficacy study outcomes, in the form of the false negative result rate when comparing treated and control groups. Two tumor measurement methods were compared; calipers which rely on manual measurement, and an automatic 3D and thermal imaging device. Tumor growth curve data were used to create an in silico efficacy study with control and treated groups. Before applying user variability, treatment group tumor volumes were statistically different to the control group. Utilizing data collected from 15 different users across 9 in vivo studies, user measurement variability was computed for both methods and simulation was used to investigate its impact on the in silico study outcome. User variability produced a false negative result in 0.7% to 18.5% of simulated studies when using calipers, depending on treatment efficacy. When using an imaging device with lower user variability this was reduced to 0.0% to 2.6%, demonstrating that user variability impacts study outcomes and the ability to detect treatment effect. Reducing variability in efficacy studies can increase confidence in efficacy study outcomes without altering group sizes. By using a measurement device with lower user variability, the chance of missing a therapeutic effect can be reduced and time and resources spent pursuing false results could be saved. This improvement in data quality is of particular interest in discovery and dosing studies, where being able to detect small differences between groups is crucial.
期刊介绍:
The field of cancer research relies on advances in many other disciplines, including omics technology, mass spectrometry, radio imaging, computer science, and biostatistics. Cancer Informatics provides open access to peer-reviewed high-quality manuscripts reporting bioinformatics analysis of molecular genetics and/or clinical data pertaining to cancer, emphasizing the use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, statistical algorithms, advanced imaging techniques, data visualization, and high-throughput technologies. As the leading journal dedicated exclusively to the report of the use of computational methods in cancer research and practice, Cancer Informatics leverages methodological improvements in systems biology, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and molecular biochemistry into the fields of cancer detection, treatment, classification, risk-prediction, prevention, outcome, and modeling.