| 1. |
- Hollestelle, Antoinette, et al.
(författare)
-
No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Gynecologic Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0090-8258 .- 1095-6859. ; 141:2, s. 386-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3′ UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370. Methods Centralized genotyping and analysis were performed for 140,012 women enrolled in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (15,357 ovarian cancer patients; 30,816 controls), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (33,530 breast cancer patients; 37,640 controls), and the Consortium of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (14,765 BRCA1 and 7904 BRCA2 mutation carriers). Results We found no association with risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.04, p = 0.74) or breast cancer (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01, p = 0.19) and results were consistent among mutation carriers (BRCA1, ovarian cancer HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p = 0.14, breast cancer HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12, p = 0.27; BRCA2, ovarian cancer HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13, p = 0.34, breast cancer HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19, p = 0.35). Null results were also obtained for associations with overall survival following ovarian cancer (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p = 0.38), breast cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06, p = 0.38), and all other previously-reported associations. Conclusions rs61764370 is not associated with risk of ovarian or breast cancer nor with clinical outcome for patients with these cancers. Therefore, genotyping this variant has no clinical utility related to the prediction or management of these cancers.
|
|
| 2. |
- Botvinik-Nezer, Rotem, et al.
(författare)
-
Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 582, s. 84-88
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Data analysis workflows in many scientific domains have become increasingly complex and flexible. Here we assess the effect of this flexibility on the results of functional magnetic resonance imaging by asking 70 independent teams to analyse the same dataset, testing the same 9 ex-ante hypotheses(1). The flexibility of analytical approaches is exemplified by the fact that no two teams chose identical workflows to analyse the data. This flexibility resulted in sizeable variation in the results of hypothesis tests, even for teams whose statistical maps were highly correlated at intermediate stages of the analysis pipeline. Variation in reported results was related to several aspects of analysis methodology. Notably, a meta-analytical approach that aggregated information across teams yielded a significant consensus in activated regions. Furthermore, prediction markets of researchers in the field revealed an overestimation of the likelihood of significant findings, even by researchers with direct knowledge of the dataset(2-5). Our findings show that analytical flexibility can have substantial effects on scientific conclusions, and identify factors that may be related to variability in the analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging. The results emphasize the importance of validating and sharing complex analysis workflows, and demonstrate the need for performing and reporting multiple analyses of the same data. Potential approaches that could be used to mitigate issues related to analytical variability are discussed. The results obtained by seventy different teams analysing the same functional magnetic resonance imaging dataset show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of analytical choices and the importance of sharing workflows publicly and performing multiple analyses.
|
|
| 4. |
- Storch, Eric A., et al.
(författare)
-
Little Doubt That CBT Works for Pediatric OCD
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. - : Elsevier BV. - 0890-8567. ; 59:7, s. 785-787
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We write with great concern in response to the recent systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) by Uhre et al.1 Although the authors’ results consistently support the clinical efficacy of CBT for pediatric OCD, we expect that, much like ourselves, readers will be confused by the discordant and inappropriate conclusions that they put forward. These conclusions stem from the authors’ application and interpretation of their particular qualitative methods, which could lead important stakeholders (eg, parents, patients, clinicians, and payers) to wrongly discount clear evidence for what is known to be the best evidence-based therapy for pediatric OCD.
|
|
