Aminopeptidases in the soluble fraction of human placenta.

S. Mizutani,S. Nomura,O. Kurauchi,M. Kasugai,K. Ino,S. Goto,Y. Tomoda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-8981(91)90040-J

1991-09-14

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Statistical Tests for Proportion Difference in One-to-Two Matched Binary Diagnostic Data: Application to Environmental Testing of Salmonella in the United States

Hui Lin,Adam Zhu,Chong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math12050741

IF: 2.4

2024-03-02

Mathematics

Abstract:Pooled sample testing is an effective strategy to reduce the cost of disease surveillance in human and animal medicine. Testing pooled samples commonly produces matched observations with dichotomous responses in medical and epidemiological research. Although standard approaches exist for one-to-one paired binary data analyses, there is not much work on one-to-two or one-to-N matched binary data in the current statistical literature. The existing Miettinen's test assumes that the multiple observations from the same matched set are mutually independent. In this paper, we propose exact and asymptotic tests for one-to-two matched binary data. Our methods are markedly different from the previous studies in that we do not rely on the mutual independence assumption. The emphasis on the interdependence of observations within a matched set is inherent and attractive in both human health and veterinary medicine. It can be applied to all kinds of diagnostic studies with a one-to-two matched data structure. Our methods can be generalized to the one-to-N matched case. We discuss applications of the proposed methods to the environmental testing of salmonella in the United States.

mathematics
EBT: a Statistic Test Identifying Moderate Size of Significant Features with Balanced Power and Precision for Genome-Wide Rate Comparisons

Xinjie Hui,Yueming Hu,Ming-An Sun,Xingsheng Shu,Rongfei Han,Qinggang Ge,Yejun Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx294

IF: 5.8

2017-01-01

Bioinformatics

Abstract:Motivation: In genome-wide rate comparison studies, there is a big challenge for effective identification of an appropriate number of significant features objectively, since traditional statistical comparisons without multi-testing correction can generate a large number of false positives while multi-testing correction tremendously decreases the statistic power.Results: In this study, we proposed a new exact test based on the translation of rate comparison to two binomial distributions. With modeling and real datasets, the exact binomial test (EBT) showed an advantage in balancing the statistical precision and power, by providing an appropriate size of significant features for further studies. Both correlation analysis and bootstrapping tests demonstrated that EBT is as robust as the typical rate-comparison methods, e.g. chi(2) test, Fisher's exact test and Binomial test. Performance comparison among machine learning models with features identified by different statistical tests further demonstrated the advantage of EBT. The new test was also applied to analyze the genome-wide somatic gene mutation rate difference between lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), two main lung cancer subtypes and a list of new markers were identified that could be lineage-specifically associated with carcinogenesis of LUAD and LUSC, respectively. Interestingly, three cilia genes were found selectively with high mutation rates in LUSC, possibly implying the importance of cilia dysfunction in the carcinogenesis.Availability and implementation: An R package implementing EBT could be downloaded from the website freely: http://www.szu-bioinf.org/EBT.Contact: wangyj@szu.edu.cnSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
A Comparative Review of Methods for Comparing Means Using Partially Paired Data

Beibei Guo,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215577111

IF: 2.494

2015-01-01

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:In medical experiments with the objective of testing the equality of two means, data are often partially paired by design or because of missing data. The partially paired data represent a combination of paired and unpaired observations. In this article, we review and compare nine methods for analyzing partially paired data, including the two-sample t-test, paired t-test, corrected z-test, weighted t-test, pooled t-test, optimal pooled t-test, multiple imputation method, mixed model approach, and the test based on a modified maximum likelihood estimate. We compare the performance of these methods through extensive simulation studies that cover a wide range of scenarios with different effect sizes, sample sizes, and correlations between the paired variables, as well as true underlying distributions. The simulation results suggest that when the sample size is moderate, the test based on the modified maximum likelihood estimator is generally superior to the other approaches when the data is normally distributed and the optimal pooled t-test performs the best when the data is not normally distributed, with well-controlled type I error rates and high statistical power; when the sample size is small, the optimal pooled t-test is to be recommended when both variables have missing data and the paired t-test is to be recommended when only one variable has missing data.
Statistical inference for diagnostic test accuracy studies with multiple comparisons

Max Westphal,Antonia Zapf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802241236933

IF: 2.494

2024-03-16

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Ahead of Print. Diagnostic accuracy studies assess the sensitivity and specificity of a new index test in relation to an established comparator or the reference standard. The development and selection of the index test are usually assumed to be conducted prior to the accuracy study. In practice, this is often violated, for instance, if the choice of the (apparently) best biomarker, model or cutpoint is based on the same data that is used later for validation purposes. In this work, we investigate several multiple comparison procedures which provide family-wise error rate control for the emerging multiple testing problem. Due to the nature of the co-primary hypothesis problem, conventional approaches for multiplicity adjustment are too conservative for the specific problem and thus need to be adapted. In an extensive simulation study, five multiple comparison procedures are compared with regard to statistical error rates in least-favourable and realistic scenarios. This covers parametric and non-parametric methods and one Bayesian approach. All methods have been implemented in the new open-source R package cases which allows us to reproduce all simulation results. Based on our numerical results, we conclude that the parametric approaches (maxT and Bonferroni) are easy to apply but can have inflated type I error rates for small sample sizes. The two investigated Bootstrap procedures, in particular the so-called pairs Bootstrap, allow for a family-wise error rate control in finite samples and in addition have a competitive statistical power.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Assessing compatibility of two laboratories: formulations as a statistical hypothesis testing problem

Andrew L Rukhin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/50/1/49

2013-01-09

Metrologia

Abstract:A decision problem frequently occurring in metrology is that of compatibility of data obtained by two (or several) different laboratories, methods or instruments. One laboratory can be a prestigious national metrology institute whose data are considered to be a gold standard or a certified reference material interval. When each laboratory presents its results in the form of a coverage interval for the measurand, several statistical approaches to this conformity assessment problem are reviewed including the classical ‘equality of means’ hypotheses tests. A new compatibility hypothesis is formulated in terms of consistency of laboratory results and compliance with a maximum permitted uncertainty. The power functions of these tests are compared numerically. The Kullback–Leibler information number is suggested as a directional (asymmetric) interchangeability index.

instruments & instrumentation,physics, applied
Exploration of the comparison between different biochemical detection systems based on sigma metrics

李佳,高佳,崔婵娟,于梦瑶,张浩,崔巍

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn114452-20220113-00021

2022-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To explore the feasibility of using the sigma metrics calculated with the data of internal quality control for the comparison of the analytical performance between different biochemical analyzers.Methods:The internal quality control results of twenty-five biochemical assays in the biochemical analyzers of the department of clinical laboratory in Cancer Hospital from February 1, 2021 to July 31, 2021 were collected. The formula sigma =( TEa- Bias)/ CV was used to calculate the sigma metrics of two different levels of the biochemical assays including albumin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, calcium, cholesterol, creatine kinase, chlorine, creatinine, γ- glutamyltranspeptidase, blood glucose, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, immunoglobulin A, immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin M, potassium, lactate dehydrogenase, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, sodium, inorganic phosphorus, total bilirubin, triglyceride, total protein, urea, uric acid. The imprecision was obtained by the coefficient of variation of internal quality control. The bias was calculated by the deviation between the mean of internal quality control of the comparison instrument and the target instrument. The allowable total error ( TEa) was based on People's Republic of China Health Industry Standard (WS/T403-2012) or EQA standard of National Center for Clinical Laboratories (NCCL). Compared the sigma values of the comparison instrument relative to the target instrument with the average percentage bias obtained by the traditional comparison method. Quality goal index was used to analyze the causes of poor performance and judge the results of comparison. Results:Compared with the target instrument Beckman AU5800-3, the comparison instrument Beckman AU5800-1 had 10 assays with σ>6, accounting for 40%, 23 assays with σ>3, accounting for 92%, and only albumin and blood glucose showed σ<3. Through statostical analysis, the comparisons of all assays were passed. The comparison instrument Beckman AU5800-2 had 8 assays with σ>6, accounting for 32%, 20 assays with σ>3, accounting for 80%. Only alkaline phosphatase, calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, total protein and urea showed σ<3. Through statostical analysis, the comparisons of GGT and IgM failed. For the traditional comparison method, the percentage bias between the comparison instruments and the target instrument were all within the range of the evaluation standard. But there was no significant correlation between the σ value and the average bias of the traditional comparison method, and the biases were correlated.Conclusions:Using the sigma metrics calculated with the data of internal quality control for the comparison of different detection systems is a convenient and operable method. It can monitor the comparability between different detection systems in the laboratory at any time and be the supplement of the traditional comparison method.
A discussion and evaluation of statistical procedures used by JIMB authors when comparing means

K Thomas Klasson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuae001

2024-01-01

Abstract:Abstract Out of the 166 articles published in Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology (JIMB) in 2019–2020 (not including special issues or review articles), 51 of them used a statistical test to compare two or more means. The most popular test was the (Standard) t-test, which often was used to compare several pairs of means. Other statistical procedures used included Fisher's least significant difference (LSD), Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD), and Welch's t-test; and to a lesser extent Bonferroni, Duncan's Multiple Range, Student–Newman–Keuls, and Kruskal–Wallis tests. This manuscript examines the performance of some of these tests with simulated experimental data, typical of those reported by JIMB authors. The results show that many of the most common procedures used by JIMB authors result in statistical conclusions that are prone to have large false positive (Type I) errors. These error-prone procedures included the multiple t-test, multiple Welch's t-test, and Fisher's LSD. These multiple comparisons procedures were compared with alternatives (Fisher–Hayter, Tukey's HSD, Bonferroni, and Dunnett's t-test) that were able to better control Type I errors. Non-technical summary The aim of this work was to review and recommend statistical procedures for Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology authors who often compare the effect of several treatments on microorganisms and their functions.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Comparative analysis of calculating sigma metrics by a trueness verification proficiency testing-based approach and an internal quality control data inter-laboratory comparison-based approach.

Runqing Li,Tengjiao Wang,Lijun Gong,Peng Peng,Song Yang,Haibin Zhao,Pan Xiong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22989

IF: 3.124

2019-01-01

Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis

Abstract:Introduction Two methods were compared for evaluating the sigma metrics of clinical biochemistry tests using two different allowable total error (TEa) specifications. Materials and methods The imprecision (CV%) and bias (bias%) of 19 clinical biochemistry analytes were calculated using a trueness verification proficiency testing (TPT)-based approach and an internal quality control data inter-laboratory comparison (IQC)-based approach, respectively. Two sources of total allowable error (TEa), the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88) and the People's Republic of China Health Industry Standard (WS/T 403-2012), were used to calculate the sigma metrics (sigma(CLIA,) sigma(WS/T)). Sigma metrics were calculated to provide a single value for assessing the quality of each test based on a single concentration level. Results For both approaches, sigma(CLIA) > sigma(WS/T) in 18 out of 19 assays. For the TPT-based approach, 16 assays showed sigma(CLIA) > 3, and 12 assays showed sigma(WS/T) > 3. For the IQC-based approach, 19 and 16 assays showed sigma(CLIA) > 3 and sigma(WS/T) > 3, respectively. Conclusions Both methods can be used as references for calculating sigma metrics and designing QC schedules in clinical laboratories. Sigma metrics should be evaluated comprehensively by different approaches.
Hypothesis Test to Compare Two Paired Binomial Proportions: Assessment of 24 Methods

José Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes,Tulsi Sagar Sheth,José Fernando Vera-Vera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math12020190

IF: 2.4

2024-01-07

Mathematics

Abstract:The comparison of two paired binomial proportions is a topic of interest in statistics, with important applications in medicine. There are different methods in the statistical literature to solve this problem, and the McNemar test is the best known of all of them. The problem has been solved from a conditioned perspective, only considering the discordant pairs, and from an unconditioned perspective, considering all of the observed values. This manuscript reviews the existing methods to solve the hypothesis test of equality for the two paired proportions and proposes new methods. Monte Carlo simulation methods were carried out to study the asymptotic behaviour of the methods studied, giving some general rules of application depending on the sample size. In general terms, the Wald test, the likelihood-ratio test, and two tests based on association measures in 2 × 2 tables can always be applied, whatever the sample size is, and if the sample size is large, then the McNemar test without a continuity correction and the modified Wald test can also be applied. The results have been applied to a real example on the diagnosis of coronary heart disease.

mathematics
Comparison study of differential abundance testing methods using two large Parkinson disease gut microbiome datasets derived from 16S amplicon sequencing

Zachary D. Wallen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04193-6

IF: 3.307

2021-05-25

BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract:Abstract Background Testing for differential abundance of microbes in disease is a common practice in microbiome studies. Numerous differential abundance (DA) testing methods exist and range from traditional statistical tests to methods designed for microbiome data. Comparison studies of DA testing methods have been performed, but none performed on microbiome datasets collected for the study of real, complex disease. Due to this, DA testing was performed here using various DA methods in two large, uniformly collected gut microbiome datasets on Parkinson disease (PD), and their results compared. Results Overall, 78–92% of taxa tested were detected as differentially abundant by at least one method, while 5–22% were called differentially abundant by the majority of methods (depending on dataset and filtering of taxonomic data prior to testing). Concordances between method results ranged from 1 to 100%. Average concordance for datasets 1 and 2 were 24% and 28% respectively, and 27% for replicated DA signatures. Concordances increased when removing rarer taxa before testing, increasing average concordances by 2–32%. Certain methods consistently resulted in higher concordances (e.g. ANCOM-BC, LEfSe), while others consistently resulted in lower (e.g. edgeR, fitZIG). Hierarchical clustering revealed three groups of DA signatures that were (1) replicated by the majority of methods on average and included taxa previously associated with PD, (2) replicated by a subset of methods and included taxa largely enriched in PD, and (3) replicated by few to one method(s). Conclusions Differential abundance tests yielded varied concordances, and amounts of detected DA signatures. Some methods were more concordant than others on both filtered and unfiltered data, therefore, if consistency with other study methodology is a key goal, one might choose among these methods. Even still, using one method on one dataset may find true associations, but may also detect false positives. To help lower false positives, one might analyze data with two or more DA methods to gauge concordance, and use a built-in replication dataset. This study will hopefully serve to complement previously reported DA method comparison studies by implementing and coalescing a large number of both previously and yet to be compared methods on two real gut microbiome datasets.

biochemical research methods,biotechnology & applied microbiology,mathematical & computational biology
Assessing method agreement for paired repeated binary measurements administered by multiple raters

Wei Wang,Nan Lin,Jordan D. Oberhaus,Michael S. Avidan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8398

2019-12-01

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:<p>Method comparison studies are essential for development in medical and clinical fields. These studies often compare a cheaper, faster, or less invasive measuring method with a widely used one to see if they have sufficient agreement for interchangeable use. Moreover, unlike simply reading measurements from devices, eg, reading body temperature from a thermometer, the response measurement in many clinical and medical assessments is impacted not only by the measuring device but also by the rater. For example, widespread inconsistencies are commonly observed among raters in psychological or cognitive assessment studies due to different characteristics such as rater training and experience, especially in large‐scale assessment studies when many raters are employed. This paper proposes a model‐based approach to assess agreement of two measuring methods for paired repeated binary measurements under the scenario where the agreement between two measuring methods and the agreement among raters are required to be studied simultaneously. Based upon the generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), the decision on the adequacy of interchangeable use is made by testing the equality of fixed effects of methods. Approaches for assessing method agreement, such as the Bland‐Altman diagram and Cohen's kappa, are also developed for repeated binary measurements based upon the latent variables in GLMMs. We assess our novel model‐based approach by simulation studies and a real clinical application, in which patients are evaluated repeatedly for delirium with two validated screening methods. Both the simulation studies and the real data analyses demonstrate that our proposed approach can effectively assess method agreement.</p>

public, environmental & occupational health,medicine, research & experimental,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Assessing Agreement Between Two Methods of Quantitative Measurements: Exact Test Procedure and Sample Size Calculation

Gwowen Shieh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2019.1677495

2019-12-02

Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research

Abstract:Assessment of agreement between measurement methods is an important problem in medical practice and research. Several two one-sided tests (TOST) procedures have been proposed to evaluate whether two methods have sufficient agreement. These TOST techniques of limits of agreement or normal percentiles are natural generalizations of the favorable TOST procedure of mean differences. But their fundamental behavior of Type I error control has not been examined. This article describes an improved and exact approach for declaring agreement between two measurement methods when the range of central proportion of paired differences is within the designated threshold interval around zero. Theoretical examinations and numerical investigations are provided to justify the advantages of the proposed approach and to illustrate the shortcomings of the existing TOST procedures for assessing agreement between two methods. To facilitate the suggested agreement appraisal in design planning, the corresponding power and sample size formulas are also derived. Both SAS and R algorithms are presented for conducting agreement test, power calculation, and sample size determination in method comparison studies.

mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs

Chaya S Moskowitz,Margaret S Pepe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774506cn147oa

2006-06-01

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background Although statistical methodology is well developed for comparing diagnostic tests in terms of their sensitivities and specificities, comparative inference about predictive values is not. Purpose In this paper we consider the design and analysis of studies comparing the positive and negative predictive values of two diagnostic tests that are measured on all subjects. Methods We focus on comparing tests using the relative positive and negative predictive values. We discuss directly estimating these quantities from the data and derive analytic variance expressions. Sample size formulas for study design ensue. Results We analyze data on patients with cystic fibrosis to illustrate the methodology. This approach is compared and contrasted with an existing regression framework that can also be used for similar analysis purposes and yields similar results. Conclusions We have developed a new approach for comparing the predictive values of two tests that gives rise to sample size formulas for study design.

medicine, research & experimental
Unconditional Exact Tests for Equivalence or Noninferiority for Paired Binary Endpoints

Huey-Miin Hsueh,Jen-Pei Liu,James J. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00478.x

IF: 1.701

2001-06-01

Biometrics

Abstract:Problems of establishing equivalence or noninferiority between two medical diagnostic procedures involve comparisons of the response rates between correlated proportions. When the sample size is small, the asymptotic tests may not be reliable. This article proposes an unconditional exact test procedure to assess equivalence or noninferiority. Two statistics, a sample-based test statistic and a restricted maximum likelihood estimation (RMLE)-based test statistic, to define the rejection region of the exact test are considered. We show the p-value of the proposed unconditional exact tests can be attained at the boundary point of the null hypothesis. Assessment of equivalence is often based on a comparison of the confidence limits with the equivalence limits. We also derive the unconditional exact confidence intervals on the difference of the two proportion means for the two test statistics. A typical data set of comparing two diagnostic procedures is analyzed using the proposed unconditional exact and asymptotic methods. The p-value from the unconditional exact tests is generally larger than the p-value from the asymptotic tests. In other words, an exact confidence interval is generally wider than the confidence interval obtained from an asymptotic test.

statistics & probability,mathematical & computational biology,biology
Comparing Variabilities in Clinical Research

Yonghee lee,Hansheng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b14760-33

2003-01-01

Abstract:In most clinical trials comparing a test drug and a control (e.g., a placebo control or an active control), treatment effect is usually established by comparing mean response change from baseline of some primary study endpoints assuming that their corresponding variabilities are comparable. In practice, however, variabilities associated with the test drug and the control could be very different. When the variability of the test drug is much larger than that of the reference drug, safety of the test drug could be a concern. Thus, in addition to comparing mean responses between treatments, it is also of interest to compare the variabilities associated with the responses between treatments. In practice, the variabilities associated with the response are usually classified into two categories, namely, the intrasubject (or within-subject) variability and the intersubject (or between-subjects) variability. Intrasubject variability refers to the variability observed from repeated measurements from the same subject under the same experimental condition. On the other hand, intersubject variability is the variability due to the heterogeneity among subjects. The total variability is simply the sum of the intraand intersubject variabilities. In practice, it is of interest to test for equality, noninferiority/superiority, and similarity (or equivalence) between treatments in terms of the intrasubject, intersubject, and/or total variabilities. Under a replicated parallel design, the usual F-test can be performed to compare intrasubject variabilities. Under a replicated crossover design, Chinchilli and Esinhart proposed the F-test using an orthogonal transformation to test for difference in intrasubject variability between treatments. Under replicated parallel designs, however, intersubject and total variabilities between two treatments cannot be compared by the usual F-test because the distribution of estimators does not follow a chi-square distribution. In these cases, the modified large sample (MLS) method is suggested (see, e.g., Refs. [2–5]). The MLS method is shown to be superior to the other approximation methods in practice. Under a replicated crossover design, the MLS method is not appropriate to compare intersubject and total variabilities because estimators of variance components are not independent. Lee et al. extend the MLS method when estimators of variance components are dependent. In addition, Lee et al. study a test for comparing intersubject and total variabilities under replicated crossover designs based on the extension of the MLS method. In practice, instead of comparing intrasubject variabilities, it may be of interest to compare intrasubject coefficient of variation (CV). In recent years, the use of intrasubject CV has become popular when assessing the reproducibility, similarity, and stability of a drug product when the drug product is repeatedly administered over a period of time. In this entry, we will discuss two statistical methods by Chow and Tse and Quan and Shih.
Guidelines for the statistical analysis of a collaborative study of a laboratory method for testing disinfectant product performance.

M. Hamilton,D. Goeres,Gordon C. Hamilton,A. Parker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5740/JAOACINT.12-217

2013-09-01

Journal of AOAC International

Abstract:This paper presents statistical techniques suitable for analyzing a collaborative study (multilaboratory study or ring trial) of a laboratory disinfectant product performance test (DPPT) method. Emphasis is on the assessment of the repeatability, reproducibility, resemblance, and responsiveness of the DPPT method. The suggested statistical techniques are easily modified for application to a single laboratory study. The presentation includes descriptions of the plots and tables that should be constructed during initial examination of the data, including a discussion of outliers and QA checks. The statistical recommendations deal with evaluations of prevailing types of DPPTs, including both quantitative and semiquantitative tests. The presentation emphasizes tests in which the disinfectant treatment is applied to surface-associated microbes and the outcome is a viable cell count; however, the statistical guidelines are appropriate for suspension tests and other test systems. The recommendations also are suitable for disinfectant tests using any microbe (vegetative bacteria, virus, spores, etc.) or any disinfectant treatment. The descriptions of the statistical techniques include either examples of calculations based on published data or citations to published calculations. Computer code is provided in an appendix.

Medicine,Computer Science,Environmental Science
Statistical Methods for Comparing Predictive Values in Medical Diagnosis

Chanrim Park,Seo Young Park,Hwa Jung Kim,Hee Jung Shin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.0049

Abstract:Evaluating the performance of a binary diagnostic test, including artificial intelligence classification algorithms, involves measuring sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Particularly when comparing the performance of two diagnostic tests applied on the same set of patients, these metrics are crucial for identifying the more accurate test. However, comparing predictive values presents statistical challenges because their denominators depend on the test outcomes, unlike the comparison of sensitivities and specificities. This paper reviews existing methods for comparing predictive values and proposes using the permutation test. The permutation test is an intuitive, non-parametric method suitable for datasets with small sample sizes. We demonstrate each method using a dataset from MRI and combined modality of mammography and ultrasound in diagnosing breast cancer.
Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design

Jen-Pei Liu,Hsin-Yi Fan,Mi-Chia Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10543400500265561

Abstract:Currently, methods for evaluation of equivalence under a matched-pair design use either difference in proportions or relative risk as measures of risk association. However, these measures of association are only for cross-sectional studies or prospective investigations, such as clinical trials and they cannot be applied to retrospective research such as case-control studies. As a result, under a matched-pair design, we propose the use of the conditional odds ratio for assessment of equivalence in both prospective and retrospective research. We suggest the use of the asymptotic confidence interval of the conditional odds ratio for evaluation of equivalence. In addition, a score test based on the restricted maximum likelihood estimator (RMLE) is derived to test the hypothesis of equivalence under a matched-pair design. On the other hand, a sample size formula is also provided. A simulation study was conducted to empirically investigate the size and power of the proposed procedures. Simulation results show that the score test not only adequately controls the Type I error but it can also provide sufficient power. A numerical example illustrates the proposed methods.
Analysis of two Binomial Proportions in Non-inferiority Confirmatory Trials

Hassan Lakkis,Andrew Lakkis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.04372

2022-07-10

Abstract:In this paper, we propose considering an exact likelihood score (ELS) test for non-inferiority comparison and we derive its test-based confidence interval for the difference between two independent binomial proportions. The p-value for this test is obtained by using exact binomial probabilities with the nuisance parameter being replaced by its restricted maximum likelihood estimate. Calculated type I errors revealed that the proposed ELS method has important advantages for non-inferiority comparisons over popular asymptotic methods for adequately powered confirmatory clinical trials, at 80% or 90% statistical power. For unbalanced sample sizes of the compared treatment groups, the type I errors for the asymptotic score method were shown to be higher than the nominal level in a systematic pattern over a range of the true proportions, but the ELS method did not suffer from such a problem. On average, the true type I error of the ELS method was closer to the nominal level than all considered methods in the empirical comparisons. Also, in rare cases, the type I errors of the ELS test exceeded the nominal level, but only by a small amount. In addition, the p-value and confidence interval using the ELS method can be obtained in less than 30 seconds of computer time for most confirmatory trials. The theoretical arguments and the attractive empirical evidence, along with fast computation time, should make the ELS method very attractive for consideration in statistical practice.

Methodology,Applications
A novel statistical method for comparing effectiveness of two treatments-simulated randomized controlled trials

Weili Yan,Shaoke Chen,Yi Cheng,Chongfan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-5501.2013.01.003

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To develop a new statistical method for comparing effectiveness of two treatments for the same disease indication.A statistical method needs to be developed to compare effectiveness of different treatments by using existing clinical data when lacking of evidence from randomized controlled trials.Methods Datasets including an outcome variable and a confounder for two treatments were simulated.Subjects in each dataset were randomly divided into two arms for 100 times,and the means were compared by using student-t tests and Per-protocol analysis strategy was applied.Subjects with assigned treatment by randomization that was contradictory to the actual received treatment were considered drop-out of conventional RCTs,and were excluded from comparisons of means.The ratio of the frequency of hypothesis tests that rejected H0 to the frequency of hypothesis tests that did not reject H0,called odds,was used to predict the probability of significant tests for group difference.To document the consistency and reliability of the method,the distribution of odds and its 95% CI,and the confounding effect were described in simulated datasets with various between-group mean differences and statistical power(ranging from 0.5 to 0.85) with varied sample sizes(n=50,100,500,and 1 000).Stata 11.0 was used to program and perform the analysis.Results The odds and its 95%CI of simulated RCTs were perfectly and linearly correlated with the change of between-group mean differences and statistical power,by difference sample size.A conclusion could be made based on the hypothesis of the simulated randomized controlled trials(sRCT).The probability of loss of balance of confounding was over 95% for equal and unequal sample size of two arms after excluding misclassified subjects.Conclusions The proposed novel analytical method,simulated RCTs based on real clinical treatment data,can be used to compare effectiveness of two treatments when evidence from RCTs is unavailable.

Aminopeptidases in the soluble fraction of human placenta.

Statistical Tests for Proportion Difference in One-to-Two Matched Binary Diagnostic Data: Application to Environmental Testing of Salmonella in the United States

EBT: a Statistic Test Identifying Moderate Size of Significant Features with Balanced Power and Precision for Genome-Wide Rate Comparisons

A Comparative Review of Methods for Comparing Means Using Partially Paired Data

Statistical inference for diagnostic test accuracy studies with multiple comparisons

Assessing compatibility of two laboratories: formulations as a statistical hypothesis testing problem

Exploration of the comparison between different biochemical detection systems based on sigma metrics

A discussion and evaluation of statistical procedures used by JIMB authors when comparing means

Comparative analysis of calculating sigma metrics by a trueness verification proficiency testing-based approach and an internal quality control data inter-laboratory comparison-based approach.

Hypothesis Test to Compare Two Paired Binomial Proportions: Assessment of 24 Methods

Comparison study of differential abundance testing methods using two large Parkinson disease gut microbiome datasets derived from 16S amplicon sequencing

Assessing method agreement for paired repeated binary measurements administered by multiple raters

Assessing Agreement Between Two Methods of Quantitative Measurements: Exact Test Procedure and Sample Size Calculation

Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs

Unconditional Exact Tests for Equivalence or Noninferiority for Paired Binary Endpoints

Comparing Variabilities in Clinical Research

Guidelines for the statistical analysis of a collaborative study of a laboratory method for testing disinfectant product performance.

Statistical Methods for Comparing Predictive Values in Medical Diagnosis

Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design

Analysis of two Binomial Proportions in Non-inferiority Confirmatory Trials

A novel statistical method for comparing effectiveness of two treatments-simulated randomized controlled trials