Why did European Radiology reject my radiomic biomarker paper? How to correctly evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting
Authors:
Open Access
- 18 May 2021
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in European Radiology
- Vol. 31 (12) , 9361-9368
Abstract
This review explains in simple terms, accessible to the non-statistician, general principles regarding the correct research methods to develop and then evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting, including radiomic biomarkers. The distinction between diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers is made and emphasis placed on the need to assess clinical utility within the context of a multivariable model. Such models should not be restricted to imaging biomarkers and must include relevant disease and patient characteristics likely to be clinically useful. Biomarker utility is based on whether its addition to the basic clinical model improves diagnosis or prediction. Approaches to both model development and evaluation are explained and the need for adequate amounts of representative data stressed so as to avoid underpowering and overfitting. Advice is provided regarding how to report the research correctly. Key Points: • Imaging biomarker research is common but methodological errors are encountered frequently that may mean the research is not clinically useful. • The clinical utility of imaging biomarkers is best assessed by their additive effect on multivariable models based on clinical factors known to be important. • The data used to develop such models should be sufficient for the number of variables investigated and the model should be evaluated, preferably using data unrelated to development.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Institute for Health Research
This publication has 56 references indexed in Scilit:
- External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methodsBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2013
- Predicting early death in patients with traumatic bleeding: development and validation of prognostic modelBMJ, 2012
- Cancer Biomarkers: Can We Turn Recent Failures into Success?JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2010
- Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a reviewBMC Medicine, 2010
- Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a reviewBMC Medicine, 2010
- Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelinesBritish Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Novel and Conventional Biomarkers for Prediction of Incident Cardiovascular Events in the CommunityJAMA, 2009
- Predicting Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and International Validation of Prognostic Scores Based on Admission CharacteristicsPLOS Medicine, 2008
- Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort studyBMJ, 2007
- Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual frameworkClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2001