Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Why have so few proteomic biomarkers “survived” validation? (Sample size and independent validation considerations)

Why have so few proteomic biomarkers “survived” validation? (Sample size and independent... Proteomic biomarker discovery has led to the identification of numerous potential candidates for disease diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of response to therapy. However, very few of these identified candidate biomarkers reach clinical validation and go on to be routinely used in clinical practice. One particular issue with biomarker discovery is the identification of significantly changing proteins in the initial discovery experiment that do not validate when subsequently tested on separate patient sample cohorts. Here, we seek to highlight some of the statistical challenges surrounding the analysis of LC‐MS proteomic data for biomarker candidate discovery. We show that common statistical algorithms run on data with low sample sizes can overfit and yield misleading misclassification rates and AUC values. A common solution to this problem is to prefilter variables (via, e.g. ANOVA and or use of correction methods such as Bonferonni or false discovery rate) to give a smaller dataset and reduce the size of the apparent statistical challenge. However, we show that this exacerbates the problem yielding even higher performance metrics while reducing the predictive accuracy of the biomarker panel. To illustrate some of these limitations, we have run simulation analyses with known biomarkers. For our chosen algorithm (random forests), we show that the above problems are substantially reduced if a sufficient number of samples are analyzed and the data are not prefiltered. Our view is that LC‐MS proteomic biomarker discovery data should be analyzed without prefiltering and that increasing the sample size in biomarker discovery experiments should be a very high priority. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Proteomics Wiley

Why have so few proteomic biomarkers “survived” validation? (Sample size and independent validation considerations)

Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/why-have-so-few-proteomic-biomarkers-survived-validation-sample-size-8YpOHAeuvY

References (23)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
"© 2014 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim"
ISSN
1615-9853
eISSN
1615-9861
DOI
10.1002/pmic.201300377
pmid
24737731
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Proteomic biomarker discovery has led to the identification of numerous potential candidates for disease diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of response to therapy. However, very few of these identified candidate biomarkers reach clinical validation and go on to be routinely used in clinical practice. One particular issue with biomarker discovery is the identification of significantly changing proteins in the initial discovery experiment that do not validate when subsequently tested on separate patient sample cohorts. Here, we seek to highlight some of the statistical challenges surrounding the analysis of LC‐MS proteomic data for biomarker candidate discovery. We show that common statistical algorithms run on data with low sample sizes can overfit and yield misleading misclassification rates and AUC values. A common solution to this problem is to prefilter variables (via, e.g. ANOVA and or use of correction methods such as Bonferonni or false discovery rate) to give a smaller dataset and reduce the size of the apparent statistical challenge. However, we show that this exacerbates the problem yielding even higher performance metrics while reducing the predictive accuracy of the biomarker panel. To illustrate some of these limitations, we have run simulation analyses with known biomarkers. For our chosen algorithm (random forests), we show that the above problems are substantially reduced if a sufficient number of samples are analyzed and the data are not prefiltered. Our view is that LC‐MS proteomic biomarker discovery data should be analyzed without prefiltering and that increasing the sample size in biomarker discovery experiments should be a very high priority.

Journal

Proteomics – Wiley

Published: Jul 1, 2014

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ;

There are no references for this article.