Assessing the agreement of biomarker data in the presence of left-censoring

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Uthumporn Domthong ; Chirag R Parikh ; Paul L Kimmel ; Vernon M Chinchilli
• 刊名：BMC Nephrology
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：December 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：15
• 期：1
• 全文大小：255 KB
• 参考文献：1. Hornung, RW, Reed, LD (1990) Estimation of average concentration in the presence of nondetectable values. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 5: pp. 46-51 CrossRef
  2. Lyles, RH, Williams, JK, Chuachoowong, R (2001) Correlating two viral load assays with known detection limits. Biometrics 57: pp. 1238-1244 CrossRef
  3. Barnhart, HX, Song, J, Lyles, RH (2005) Assay validation for left-censored data. Stat Med 24: pp. 3347-3360 CrossRef
  4. Parikh, CR, Butrymowicz, I, Yu, A, Chinchilli, VM, Park, M, Hsu, C, Reeves, WB, Devarajan, P, Kimmel, PL, Siew, ED, Liu, KD (2013) Urine stability studies for novel biomarkers of acute kidney injury. Am J Kidney Dis 63: pp. 567-572 CrossRef
  5. Patterson, SD, Aebersold, RH (2003) Proteomics: the first decade and beyond. Nat Genet 33: pp. 311-323 CrossRef
  6. Lin, LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45: pp. 255-268 CrossRef
  7. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/15/144/prepub
  
• 刊物主题：Nephrology; Internal Medicine;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1471-2369

文摘

Background In many clinical biomarker studies, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) is commonly used to assess the level of agreement of a biomarker measured under two different conditions. However, measurement of a specific biomarker typically cannot provide accurate numerical values below the lower limit of detection (LLD) of the assay, which results in left-censored data. Most researchers discard the data below the LLD or apply simple data imputation methods in the presence of left-censored data, such as replacing values below the LLD with a fixed number less than or equal to the LLD. This is not statistically optimal, because it often leads to biased estimates and overestimates the precision. Methods We describe a simple method using a bivariate normal distribution in this situation and apply SAS statistical software to arrive at the maximum likelihood (ML) estimate of the parameters and construct the estimate of the CCC. We conduct a computer simulation study to investigate the statistical properties of the ML method versus the data deletion and simple data imputation method. We also contrast the methods with real data using two urine biomarkers, Interleukin 18 and Cystatin C. Results The computer simulation studies confirm that the ML procedure is superior to the data deletion and simple data imputation procedures. In all of the simulated scenarios, the ML method yields the smallest relative bias and the highest percentage of the 95% confidence intervals that include the true value of the CCC. In the first simulation scenario (sample size of 100 paired data points, 25% left-censoring for both members of the pair, true CCC of 0.238), the relative bias is ?.43% for the ML method, ?0.97% for the data deletion method, and it ranges between ?2.94% and ?1.72% for the simple data imputation methods. Similarly, when the left-censoring for one of the members of the data pairs increases from 25% to 40%, the relative bias displays the same pattern for all methods. Conclusions When estimating the CCC from paired biomarker data in the presence of left-censored values, the ML method works better than data deletion and simple data imputation methods.