Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Statistical validation of results, as Shaffer described it, simply involves testing the null hypothesis: that the pattern you detect in your data occurs at random. If you can reject the null hypothesis—and science and medicine have settled on rejecting it when there's only a five percent or less chance that it occurred at random—then you accept that your actual finding is significant. The problem now is that we're rapidly expanding our ability to do tests. Various speakers pointed to data sources as diverse as gene expression chips and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which provide tens of thousands of individual data points to analyze. At the same time, the growth of computing power has meant that we can ask many questions of these large data sets at once, and each one of these tests increases the prospects than an error will occur in a study; as Shaffer put it, "every decision increases your error prospects." She pointed out that dividing data into subgroups, which can often identify susceptible subpopulations, is also a decision, and increases the chances of a spurious error. Smaller populations are also more prone to random associations. In the end, Young noted, by the time you reach 61 tests, there's a 95 percent chance that you'll get a significant result at random. And, let's face it—researchers want to see a significant result, so there's a strong, unintentional bias towards trying different tests until something pops out. Young went on to describe a study, published in JAMA, that was a multiple testing train wreck: exposures to 275 chemicals were considered, 32 health outcomes were tracked, and 10 demographic variables were used as controls. That was about 8,800 different tests, and as many as 9 million ways of looking at the data once the demographics were considered.

 »We’ll just have to wait for the results of the laboratory tests.« These words are familiar to many patients. It then usually takes several days for specimens to be sent to the laboratory and analyzed and for the doctor to receive the results. For many illnesses, however, a speedy diagnosis is crucial if the treatment is to be successful. In future, the patient might only have to sit in the waiting room for a few minutes until the results are ready. In a joint project, researchers from seven Fraunhofer institutes have developed a modular platform for in vitro diagnosis which enables various types of bioanalysis – of blood and saliva for example – to be conducted in the doctor’s surgery. »Thanks to its modular design our IVD platform is so flexible that it can be used for all possible bioanalytical tasks,« states Dr. Eva Ehrentreich-Förster from the Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering (IBMT) in Potsdam-Golm.The core element of the mini-laboratory is a disposable cartridge made of plastic which can be fitted with various types of sensor. For an analysis the doctor fills the cartridge with reagents – binding agents which indicate the presence of certain substances such as antigens in the specimen material. Various tests or assays are available for different types of analysis. To perform an assay, the doctor only has to place the relevant substances in the cartridge and the test then takes place automatically. »We have optimized the assays so that up to 500 assay reactions can be conducted in parallel in a single analysis step,« explains Dr. Ehrentreich-Förster. Even in the case of complex analyses the doctor obtains a result within about 30 minutes. A new module on the reverse side of the cartridge also makes it possible to analyze the specimen material at DNA level.Once the cartridge has been prepared, the doctor places it in the measurement system. The results can be read out with either optical or electrochemical biosensors. The researchers have installed a readout window for both methods in the measurement system, which features a bypass through which the specimen is pumped.