Back

In silico modelling demonstrates that user variability during tumour measurement can affect in vivo therapeutic efficacy outcomes

Murkin, J. T.; Amos, H. E.; Brough, D. W.; Turley, K. D.

2022-04-26 bioinformatics
10.1101/2022.04.20.487864 bioRxiv
Show abstract

User measurement bias during subcutaneous tumor measurement is a source of variation in preclinical in vivo studies. We investigated whether this user variability could impact efficacy study outcomes, in the form of the false negative result rate when comparing treated and control groups. Two tumor measurement methods were compared; calipers which rely on manual measurement, and an automatic 3D and thermal imaging device. Tumor growth curve data were used to create an in silico efficacy study with control and treated groups. Before applying user variability, treatment group tumor volumes were statistically different to the control group. Utilizing data collected from 15 different users across 9 in vivo studies, user measurement variability was computed for both methods and simulation was used to investigate its impact on the in silico study outcome. User variability produced a false negative result in 3.5% to 19.5% of simulated studies when using calipers, depending on treatment efficacy. When using an imaging device with lower user variability this was reduced to 0.0% to 2.4%, demonstrating that user variability impacts study outcomes and the ability to detect treatment effect. Reducing variability in efficacy studies can increase confidence in efficacy study outcomes without altering group sizes. By using a measurement device with lower user variability, the chance of missing a therapeutic effect can be reduced and time and resources spent pursuing false results could be saved. This improvement in data quality is of particular interest in discovery and dosing studies, where being able to detect small differences between groups is crucial.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.