Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2024; 28(01): 003-013
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776426
Review Article

Advancing Diagnostics and Patient Care: The Role of Biomarkers in Radiology

Ronnie Sebro 
1   Department of Radiology, Center for Augmented Intelligence, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
2   Department of Biostatistics, Center for Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The integration of biomarkers into medical practice has revolutionized the field of radiology, allowing for enhanced diagnostic accuracy, personalized treatment strategies, and improved patient care outcomes. This review offers radiologists a comprehensive understanding of the diverse applications of biomarkers in medicine. By elucidating the fundamental concepts, challenges, and recent advancements in biomarker utilization, it will serve as a bridge between the disciplines of radiology and epidemiology. Through an exploration of various biomarker types, such as imaging biomarkers, molecular biomarkers, and genetic markers, I outline their roles in disease detection, prognosis prediction, and therapeutic monitoring. I also discuss the significance of robust study designs, blinding, power and sample size calculations, performance metrics, and statistical methodologies in biomarker research. By fostering collaboration between radiologists, statisticians, and epidemiologists, I hope to accelerate the translation of biomarker discoveries into clinical practice, ultimately leading to improved patient care.

Keywords

integrated biomarkers - Integral biomarkers - sample size - power - study design


Publication History

Article published online:
08 February 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Obuchowski NA, Huang E, deSouza NM. et al. A framework for evaluating the technical performance of multiparameter quantitative imaging biomarkers (mp-QIBs). Acad Radiol 2023; 30 (02) 147-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Andre F, Ismaila N, Henry NL. et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update—Integration of Results From TAILORx. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (22) 1956-1964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chaddad A, Kucharczyk MJ, Daniel P. et al. Radiomics in glioblastoma: current status and challenges facing clinical implementation. Front Oncol 2019; 9: 374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bodalal Z, Trebeschi S, Nguyen-Kim TDL, Schats W, Beets-Tan R. Radiogenomics: bridging imaging and genomics. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44 (06) 1960-1984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Relling MV, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature 2015; 526 (7573) 343-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schwaederle M, Parker BA, Schwab RB. et al. Precision oncology: the UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center PREDICT experience. Mol Cancer Ther 2016; 15 (04) 743-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zhang Q, Liu W, Luo SB. et al. Development of a prognostic five-gene signature for diffuse lower-grade glioma patients. Front Neurol 2021; 12: 633390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 O'Connor JP, Aboagye EO, Adams JE. et al. Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017; 14 (03) 169-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT. et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014; 5: 4006 . Published correction appears in Nat Commun 2014;5:4644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R. et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48 (04) 441-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pfister DG, Haddad RI, Worden FP. et al. Biomarkers predictive of response to pembrolizumab in head and neck cancer. Cancer Med 2023; 12 (06) 6603-6614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tang Q, Chen Y, Li X. et al. The role of PD-1/PD-L1 and application of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in human cancers. Front Immunol 2022; 13: 964442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nielsen TO, Leung SCY, Riaz N. et al. Ki67 assessment protocol as an integral biomarker for avoiding radiotherapy in the LUMINA breast cancer trial. Histopathology 2023 ; August 23 ( Epub ahead of print)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yeung KT, More S, Woodward B, Velculescu V, Husain H. Circulating tumor DNA for mutation detection and identification of mechanisms of resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Diagn Ther 2017; 21 (04) 375-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jack Jr CR, Bennett DA, Blennow K. et al; Contributors. NIA-AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14 (04) 535-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Klunk WE, Engler H, Nordberg A. et al. Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer's disease with Pittsburgh Compound-B. Ann Neurol 2004; 55 (03) 306-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF. et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999; 354 (9173) 99-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gafson A, Giovannoni G, Hawkes CH. The diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: from Charcot to McDonald. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2012; 1 (01) 9-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175 (11) 1828-1837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R. et al; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22 (04) 746-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ginsburg SB, Algohary A, Pahwa S. et al. Radiomic features for prostate cancer detection on MRI differ between the transition and peripheral zones: preliminary findings from a multi-institutional study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 46 (01) 184-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gugliandolo SG, Pepa M, Isaksson LJ. et al. MRI-based radiomics signature for localized prostate cancer: a new clinical tool for cancer aggressiveness prediction? Sub-study of prospective phase II trial on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (AIRC IG-13218). Eur Radiol 2021; 31 (02) 716-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chiu FY, Yen Y. Imaging biomarkers for clinical applications in neuro-oncology: current status and future perspectives. Biomark Res 2023; 11 (01) 35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chitalia RD, Kontos D. Role of texture analysis in breast MRI as a cancer biomarker: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019; 49 (04) 927-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Giger ML, Karssemeijer N, Schnabel JA. Breast image analysis for risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2013; 15: 327-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Loomba R, Adams LA. Advances in non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Gut 2020; 69 (07) 1343-1352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kim YS, Jang YN, Song JS. Comparison of gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (04) 1709-1718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Li W, Le NN, Onishi N. et al; I-Spy Imaging Working Group, I-Spy Investigator Network. Diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting pathologic complete response in neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14 (18) 4436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rosenkrantz AB, Mannelli L, Kong X. et al. Prostate cancer: utility of fusion of T2-weighted and high b-value diffusion-weighted images for peripheral zone tumor detection and localization. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 34 (01) 95-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Provenzale JM, Wang GR, Brenner T, Petrella JR, Sorensen AG. Comparison of permeability in high-grade and low-grade brain tumors using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178 (03) 711-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Evangelista L, Sepulcri M, Pasello G. PET/CT and the response to immunotherapy in lung cancer. Curr Radiopharm 2020; 13 (03) 177-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Linning E, Lu L, Li L, Yang H, Schwartz LH, Zhao B. Radiomics for classifying histological subtypes of lung cancer based on multiphasic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2019; 43 (02) 300-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L. et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (27) 3048-3058 . Published correction appears in J Clin Oncol 2016;34(21):2562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 van Oosterom AT, Judson I, Verweij J. et al; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Safety and efficacy of imatinib (STI571) in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours: a phase I study. Lancet 2001; 358 (9291) 1421-1423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 O'Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ, Jayson GC. DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer 2007; 96 (02) 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Wielema M, Sijens PE, Dijkstra H. et al. Diffusion weighted imaging of the breast: performance of standardized breast tumor tissue selection methods in clinical decision making. PLoS One 2021; 16 (01) e0245930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Joo I, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging for monitoring the therapeutic efficacy of the vascular disrupting agent CKD-516 in rabbit VX2 liver tumors. Radiology 2014; 272 (02) 417-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Planche V, Manjon JV, Mansencal B. et al. Structural progression of Alzheimer's disease over decades: the MRI staging scheme. Brain Commun 2022; 4 (03) fcac109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Li F, Sone S, Abe H, Macmahon H, Doi K. Malignant versus benign nodules at CT screening for lung cancer: comparison of thin-section CT findings. Radiology 2004; 233 (03) 793-798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Park JE, Kim HS, Park KJ, Kim SJ, Kim JH, Smith SA. Pre- and posttreatment glioma: comparison of amide proton transfer imaging with MR spectroscopy for biomarkers of tumor proliferation. Radiology 2016; 278 (02) 514-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Brown M, Park AS, Shayya RF, Wolfson T, Su HI, Chang RJ. Ovarian imaging by magnetic resonance in adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome and age-matched controls. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 38 (03) 689-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Białecki J, Bartosz P, Marczyński W, Zając J. Usefulness of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of hematoma after primary hip arthroplasty. J Ultrason 2017; 17 (70) 149-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Choi JW, Lee JM, Lee DH. et al. Radiofrequency ablation using a separable clustered electrode for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinomas: a randomized controlled trial of a dual-switching monopolar mode versus a single-switching monopolar mode. Korean J Radiol 2021; 22 (02) 179-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Kumar AD, Durham DD, Lane L, Perera P, Rivera MP, Henderson LM. Randomized control trial of unconditional versus conditional incentives to increase study enrollment rates in participants at increased risk of lung cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 141: 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Alexander FE. The Edinburgh Randomized Trial of Breast Cancer Screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; (22) 31-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Johnson KE, Miller B, Juvancic-Heltzel JA. et al. Agreement between ultrasound and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessing percentage body fat in college-aged adults. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2014; 34 (06) 493-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Lv Y, Chen H, Luo B. et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with or without gastro-oesophageal variceal embolisation for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 7 (08) 736-746 . Published correction appears in Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;7(8):704
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Bhatia K, Guest W, Lee H. et al. Radial vs. femoral artery access for procedural success in diagnostic cerebral angiography: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Neuroradiol 2021; 31 (04) 1083-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Russell KM, Champion VL, Monahan PO. et al. Randomized trial of a lay health advisor and computer intervention to increase mammography screening in African American women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19 (01) 201-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Druy EM, Bettmann MA, Jeans W. A double-blind study of iopromide 300 for peripheral arteriography. Results of a multi-institutional comparison of iopromide with iohexol and iopamidol. Invest Radiol 1994; 29 (Suppl. 01) S102-S105 ; discussion S106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kamalipour H, Bagheri M, Kamali K, Taleie A, Yarmohammadi H. Lateral neck radiography for prediction of difficult orotracheal intubation. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22 (09) 689-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Zutshi V, Makkar B, Garg A, Batra S. Transvaginal sonography versus cystoscopy for detecting urinary bladder invasion in early stage cervical cancer. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11 (02) QC01-QC03
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Yang H, Seon J, Sung PS. et al. Dexamethasone prophylaxis to alleviate postembolization syndrome after transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28 (11) 1503-1511.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Baffour FI, Ferrero A, Aird GA. et al. Evolving role of dual-energy CT in the clinical workup of gout: a retrospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022; 218 (06) 1041-1050
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Maltenfort M. Type I, type II, and occasionally type III: how can we go wrong?. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (05) 189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Peterson SJ, Foley S. Clinician's guide to understanding effect size, alpha level, power, and sample size. Nutr Clin Pract 2021; 36 (03) 598-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2014; 34 (05) 502-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B57 1995; (01) 289-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Zhang S, Cao J, Ahn C. Sample size calculation for before-after experiments with partially overlapping cohorts. Contemp Clin Trials 2018; 64: 274-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163 . Published correction appears in J Chiropr Med 2017;16(4):346
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476) 307-310
    Google Scholar
  • 63 McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996; 1 (01) 30-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20 (01) 37-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1990
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 2005; 85 (03) 257-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Zhang Z, Castelló A. Principal components analysis in clinical studies. Ann Transl Med 2017; 5 (17) 351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Hunt RJ. Percent agreement, Pearson's correlation, and kappa as measures of inter-examiner reliability. J Dent Res 1986; 65 (02) 128-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 1994; 308 (6943) 1552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ 1994; 309 (6947) 102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44 (03) 837-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26 (06) 565-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 2006; 27 (08) 861-874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 2000; 45 (1–2): 23-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56 (11) 1129-1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Davis J, Goadrich M. The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2006. Available at: https://www.biostat.wisc.edu/~page/rocpr.pdf . Accessed October 10, 2023
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Flach PA. Machine Learning: The Art and Science of Algorithms That Make Sense of Data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Sokolova M, Lapalme G. A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Inf Process Manage 2009; 45 (04) 427-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Van Rijsbergen CJ. Information Retrieval. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 80 Powers DM. Evaluation: from precision, recall and F1 to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. J Mach Learn Technol 2011; 2 (01) 37-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Nilsson NJ. Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 82 Bishop CM. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. New York, NY: Springer; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 83 Rajpurkar P, Chen E, Banerjee O, Topol EJ. AI in health and medicine. Nat Med 2022; 28 (01) 31-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Martin-Carreras T, Li H, Cooper K, Fan Y, Sebro R. Radiomic features from MRI distinguish myxomas from myxofibrosarcomas. BMC Med Imaging 2019; 19 (01) 67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Elmahdy M, Sebro R. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using CT scans of the knee: a pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2023; 302: 909-910
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Sebro R, De la Garza-Ramos C. Utilizing machine learning for opportunistic screening for low BMD using CT scans of the cervical spine. J Neuroradiol 2023; 50 (03) 293-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Sebro R, De la Garza-Ramos C, Peterson JJ. Detecting whether L1 or other lumbar levels would be excluded from DXA bone mineral density analysis during opportunistic CT screening for osteoporosis using machine learning. Int J CARS 2023 ; May 23 ( Epub ahead of print)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Sebro R, De la Garza-Ramos C. Support vector machines are superior to principal components analysis for selecting the optimal bones' CT attenuations for opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using CT scans of the foot or ankle. Osteoporos Sarcopenia 2022; 8 (03) 112-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Sebro R, De la Garza-Ramos C. Machine learning for the prediction of osteopenia/osteoporosis using the CT attenuation of multiple osseous sites from chest CT. Eur J Radiol 2022; 155: 110474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Linna N, Kahn Jr CE. Applications of natural language processing in radiology: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2022; 163: 104779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL. Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer 2018; 18 (08) 500-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Shen Y, Heacock L, Elias J. et al. ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords. Radiology 2023; 307 (02) e230163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Andaur Navarro CL, Damen JAA, Takada T. et al. Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review. BMJ 2021; 375 (2281) n2281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 95 Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2013
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. New York, NY: Springer; 2019
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE. et al; STARD Group. STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015; 277 (03) 826-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162 (01) 55-63 . Published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2015;162(8):600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (16) 1180-1184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152 (11) 726-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF. et al; Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (08) e1-e37 . Published correction appears in J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65(3):351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar