Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodological and Statistical Issues in the Use of Biomarkers in Clinical and Research Studies

  • Chapter
The Handbook of Neuropsychiatric Biomarkers, Endophenotypes and Genes

Abstract

The study of biomarkers has great promise for advancing knowledge in clinical practice and research in mental health. Biomarkers have the potential to improve our ability to diagnose individuals with a psy chiatric disorder, to screen populations at risk of devel oping disorders, to provide prognostic information to those who manifest prodromal signs or to those who already have a disorder, and to help individuals make decisions about the most appropriate treatments (treat ment response). However, there are many methodologi cal and statistical issues that must be kept in mind as biomarkers are validated in research studies and before they can be considered useful for clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Szatmari P, Maziade M, Zwaigenbaum L, et al. Informative phenotypes for genetic studies of psychiatric disorders. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2007;144:581–588

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th Ed. Text Revision. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Press; 2000

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. International statistical classifi ca tion of diseases and related health problems: tenth revision. 2nd Ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004

    Google Scholar 

  4. Helzer JE, Kraemer HC, Krueger RF. The feasibility and need for dimensional psychiatric diagnosis. Psychol Med 2006;36:1671–1680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maier W, Zobel A. Contribution of allelic variations to the phenotype of response to antidepressants and antipsychotics. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2008;258(1, Suppl): 12–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Land JM. Evidence-based medicine: evaluation of biomarkers. In: Trull AK, Demers LM, Holt DW, Johnston A, Price CP, Tredger MJ (eds.) Biomarkers of disease: an evidence-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002, pp. 390–397

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hulka BS, Margolin BH. Methodological issues in epide-miologic studies using biologic markers. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon R. Validation of pharmacogenomic biomarker classi-fi ers for treatment selection. Cancer Biomark 2006;2:89–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moore RA. Evidence-based medicine: evaluation of bio-markers. In: Trull AK, Demers LM, Holt DW, Johnston A, Price CP, Tredger MJ (eds.) Biomarkers of disease: an evi dence-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002, pp. 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lijmer JG, Willem Mol B, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061–1066

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, DiNisio M, et al. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ [serial online] 2006;174:DOI:10.1503/cmaj.050090

    Google Scholar 

  12. Baker SG, Kramer BS, McIntosh M, et al. Evaluating mark ers for the early detection of cancer: overview of study designs and methods. Clin Trials 2006;3:43–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008;336:1106–1110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rasumussen-Torvik LJ, McAlpine DD. Genetic screening for SSRI drug response among those with major depression: great promise and unseen perils. Depress Anxiety 2007;24:350–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Barnett JH, Heron J, Ring SM, et al. Gender-specific effects of the catechol-O-methyltransferase Val108/158Met poly morphism on cognitive function in children. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164:142–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing Clinical Research. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2007

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, et al. Methods in observational epidemiology. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996, pp. 311–340

    Google Scholar 

  18. McGuffin P, Cohen S, Knight J. Homing in on depression genes. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164:195–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pai M, Flores LL, Pai N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid amplifi cation tests for tuberculous meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2003;3:633–643

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Boyle MH. Sampling in epidemiologic studies. In: Verhulst FC, Koot HM (eds.) The epidemiology of child and adoles cent psychopathology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995, pp. 66–84

    Google Scholar 

  21. Keshavan MS, Stanley JA, Pettegrew JW. Magnetic reso nance spectroscopy in schizophrenia: methodological issues and fi ndings — part II. Biol Psychiatry 2000;48:369–380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Carlson CS, Eberle MA, Kruglyak L, Nickerson DA. Mapping complex disease loci in whole-genome association studies. Nature 2004;429:446–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chow S-C, Shao J, Wang H. Sample size calculations in clini cal research. Basel, Switzerland; Marcel Dekker Inc; 2003

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. JAMA 1995;274: 645–651

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nierenberg AA, Feinstein AR. How to evaluate a diagnostic marker test. JAMA 1988;259:1699–1702

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Litvan I. Methodological and research issues in the evalua tion of biological diagnostic markers for Alzheimer's dis ease. Neurobiol Aging 1998;19:121–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bolanna AA, Arranz MJ, Mancama D, et al. Pharmaco-genomics — can genetics help in the care of psychiatric patients? Int Rev Psychiatry 2004;16:311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jones DS, Perlis RH. Pharmacogenetics, race, and psychia try: prospects and challenges. Harvard Rev Psychiatry 2006;14:92–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bondy S, Spellmann I. Pharmacogenetics of antipsychotics: useful for the clinician? Curr Opin Psychiatry 2007;20: 126–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gordon E, Liddell BJ, Brown KJ, et al. Integrating objective gene-brain-behavior markers of psychiatric disorders. J Integr Neurosci 2007 Mar;6(1):1–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, et al. Methods in observational epidemiology. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:355

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003;49:7–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Streiner DL. Diagnosing tests: using and misusing diagnostic and screening tests. J Pers Assess 2003;81:209–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Almasy L. Quantitative risk factors as indices of alcoholism susceptibility. Ann Med 2003;35:337–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Alarcon M, Cantor R, Lieu J, et al. Evidence for a language quantitative trait locus on chromosome 7q in multiple autism families. Am J Hum Genet 2002;70:60–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kardon RH. Drop the Alzheimer's drop test. Neurology 1998;50:588–591

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Frank RA, Galasko D, Hampel H, et al. Biological markers for therapeutic trials in Alzheimer's disease. Proceedings of the biological markers working group; NIA initiative on neuroimaging in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 2003;24:521–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Michels Blanck H, Bowman BA, Cooper GR, et al. Laboratory issues: use of nutritional biomarkers. J Nutr 2003;133:888S–894S

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yao JK, Reddy RD, van Kammen DP. Oxidative damage and schizophrenia. An overview of the evidence and its therapeutic implications. CNS Drugs 2001;15:287–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Haack M, Hinze-Selch D, Fenzel T, et al. Plasma levels of cytokines and soluble cytokine receptors in psychiatric patients upon hospital admission: effects of confounding factors and diagnosis. J Psychiatr Res 1999;33:407–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomizing continu ous variables. BMJ 2006;332:1080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sackett D, Straus S. On some clinically useful measures of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. ACP J Club 1998; 129:A17–A19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kathmann N, Hochrein A, Uwer R, et al. Defi cits in gain of smooth pursuit eye movements in schizophrenia and affec tive disorder patients and their unaffected relatives. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:696–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bender S, Weisbrod M, Resch F. Which perspectives can endo-phenotypes and biological markers offer in the early recogni tion of schizophrenia? J Neural Transm 2007;114:1199–1215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Gottesman II, Gould TD. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:636–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mossner R, Mikova O, Koutsilieri E, et al. Consensus paper on the WFSBP task force on biological markers: biological mark ers of depression. World J Biol Psychiatry 2007;8:141–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shaw LM, Korecka M, Clark CM, et al. Biomarkers of neu-rodegeneration for diagnosis and monitoring of therapeu tics. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6:295–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Bailey P. Biological markers in Alzheimer's disease. Can J Neurol Sci 2007;34(1, Suppl):S72–S76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Vitzhum F, Behrens F, Anderson NL, et al. Proteomics: from basic research to diagnostic application. A review of require ments and needs. J Proteome Res 2005;4:1086–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1994;271:389–391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1981

    Google Scholar 

  52. Burke MJ, Preskorn SH. Therapetuci drug monitoring of antidepressants. Cost implications and relevance to clinical practice. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999;37:147–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Vuille F, Amey M, Baumann P. Use of serum level monitor ing of antidepressants in clinical practice. Pharmacopsychiatry 1991;24:190–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Mann K, Hiemke C, Lotz J, Schmidt LG, Lackner KJ, Bates DW. Appropriateness of plasma level determinations for lithium and valproate in routine care of psychiatric inpa tients with affective disorders. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2006;26:671–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Price GW, Michie PT, Johnston J, et al. A multivariate elec-trophysiological endophenotype, from a unitary cohort, shows greater research utility than any single feature in the Western Australian Family study of schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 2006;60:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;51:1173–1182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Caspi A, Moffi tt TE, Cannon M, et al. Moderation of the effect of adolescent-onset cannabis use on adult psychosis by a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyl-transferase gene: longitudinal evidence of a gene X environ ment interaction. Biol Psychiatry 2005;57:1117–1127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Bostwick DG, Adolfsson J, Burke HB, et al. Epidemiology and statistical methods in prediction of patient outcome. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005;39(3);94–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, et al. Reporting recommendations for tumour marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer 2005;93:387–391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group random ized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987–1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335:806–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster Children's Hospital and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Ryan J. Van Lieshout & Peter Szatmari

Authors
  1. Ryan J. Van Lieshout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Szatmari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa

    Michael S. Ritsner M.D., Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Psychiatry, the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion) (Associate Professor of Psychiatry, the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion)

  2. Sha'ar Menashe Mental Health Center, Hadera, Israel

    Michael S. Ritsner M.D., Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Psychiatry, the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion) (Associate Professor of Psychiatry, the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Lieshout, R.J., Szatmari, P. (2009). Methodological and Statistical Issues in the Use of Biomarkers in Clinical and Research Studies. In: Ritsner, M.S. (eds) The Handbook of Neuropsychiatric Biomarkers, Endophenotypes and Genes. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9464-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation