PREDICTION OF FAT-FREE MASS BY BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE ANALYSIS IN OLDER ADULTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A CROSS-VALIDATION STUDY USING THE DEUTERIUM DILUTION METHOD

Objective: Several limitations of published bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) equations have been reported. The aims were to develop in a multiethnic, elderly population a new prediction equation and cross-validate it along with some published BIA equations for estimating fat-free mass using deuterium oxide dilution as the reference method. Design and setting: Cross-sectional study of elderly from five developing countries. Methods: Total body water (TBW) measured by deuterium dilution was used to determine fat-free mass (FFM) in 383 subjects. Anthropometric and BIA variables were also measured. Only 377 subjects were included for the analysis, randomly divided into development and cross-validation groups after stratified by gender. Stepwise model selection was used to generate the model and Bland Altman analysis was used to test agreement. Results: FFM = 2.95 - 3.89 (Gender) + 0.514 (Ht(2)/Z) + 0.090 (Waist) + 0.156 (Body weight). The model fit parameters were an R(2), total F-Ratio, and the SEE of 0.88, 314.3, and 3.3, respectively. None of the published BIA equations met the criteria for agreement. The new BIA equation underestimated FFM by just 0.3 kg in the cross-validation sample. The mean of the difference between FFM by TBW and the new BIA equation were not significantly different; 95% of the differences were between the limits of agreement of -6.3 to 6.9 kg of FFM. There was no significant association between the mean of the differences and their averages (r = 0.008 and p = 0.2). Conclusions: This new BIA equation offers a valid option compared with some of the current published BIA equations to estimate FFM in elderly subjects from five developing countries.

Cross-validation of bioelectrical impedance analysis for the assessment of body composition in a representative sample of 6- to 13-year-old children.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: (1) To cross-validate tetra- (4-BIA) and octopolar (8-BIA) bioelectrical impedance analysis vs dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for the assessment of total and appendicular body composition and (2) to evaluate the accuracy of external 4-BIA algorithms for the prediction of total body composition, in a representative sample of Swiss children. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A representative sample of 333 Swiss children aged 6-13 years from the Kinder-Sportstudie (KISS) (ISRCTN15360785). Whole-body fat-free mass (FFM) and appendicular lean tissue mass were measured with DXA. Body resistance (R) was measured at 50 kHz with 4-BIA and segmental body resistance at 5, 50, 250 and 500 kHz with 8-BIA. The resistance index (RI) was calculated as height(2)/R. Selection of predictors (gender, age, weight, RI4 and RI8) for BIA algorithms was performed using bootstrapped stepwise linear regression on 1000 samples. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) of regression coefficients and measures of model fit using bootstrap analysis. Limits of agreement were used as measures of interchangeability of BIA with DXA. RESULTS: 8-BIA was more accurate than 4-BIA for the assessment of FFM (root mean square error (RMSE)=0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.98) vs 1.12 kg (1.01-1.24); limits of agreement 1.80 to -1.80 kg vs 2.24 to -2.24 kg). 8-BIA also gave accurate estimates of appendicular body composition, with RMSE < or = 0.10 kg for arms and < or = 0.24 kg for legs. All external 4-BIA algorithms performed poorly with substantial negative proportional bias (r> or = 0.48, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a representative sample of young Swiss children (1) 8-BIA was superior to 4-BIA for the prediction of FFM, (2) external 4-BIA algorithms gave biased predictions of FFM and (3) 8-BIA was an accurate predictor of segmental body composition.

Batch effect confounding leads to strong bias in performance estimates obtained by cross-validation.

BACKGROUND: With the large amount of biological data that is currently publicly available, many investigators combine multiple data sets to increase the sample size and potentially also the power of their analyses. However, technical differences ("batch effects") as well as differences in sample composition between the data sets may significantly affect the ability to draw generalizable conclusions from such studies. FOCUS: The current study focuses on the construction of classifiers, and the use of cross-validation to estimate their performance. In particular, we investigate the impact of batch effects and differences in sample composition between batches on the accuracy of the classification performance estimate obtained via cross-validation. The focus on estimation bias is a main difference compared to previous studies, which have mostly focused on the predictive performance and how it relates to the presence of batch effects. DATA: We work on simulated data sets. To have realistic intensity distributions, we use real gene expression data as the basis for our simulation. Random samples from this expression matrix are selected and assigned to group 1 (e.g., 'control') or group 2 (e.g., 'treated'). We introduce batch effects and select some features to be differentially expressed between the two groups. We consider several scenarios for our study, most importantly different levels of confounding between groups and batch effects. METHODS: We focus on well-known classifiers: logistic regression, Support Vector Machines (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (kNN) and Random Forests (RF). Feature selection is performed with the Wilcoxon test or the lasso. Parameter tuning and feature selection, as well as the estimation of the prediction performance of each classifier, is performed within a nested cross-validation scheme. The estimated classification performance is then compared to what is obtained when applying the classifier to independent data.

Cross validation of experts versus registration methods for target localization in deep brain stimulation.

In the last five years, Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has become the most popular and effective surgical technique for the treatent of Parkinson's disease (PD). The Subthalamic Nucleus (STN) is the usual target involved when applying DBS. Unfortunately, the STN is in general not visible in common medical imaging modalities. Therefore, atlas-based segmentation is commonly considered to locate it in the images. In this paper, we propose a scheme that allows both, to perform a comparison between different registration algorithms and to evaluate their ability to locate the STN automatically. Using this scheme we can evaluate the expert variability against the error of the algorithms and we demonstrate that automatic STN location is possible and as accurate as the methods currently used.

Cross validation of experts versus registration methods for target localization in deep brain stimulation.

In the last five years, Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has become the most popular and effective surgical technique for the treatent of Parkinson's disease (PD). The Subthalamic Nucleus (STN) is the usual target involved when applying DBS. Unfortunately, the STN is in general not visible in common medical imaging modalities. Therefore, atlas-based segmentation is commonly considered to locate it in the images. In this paper, we propose a scheme that allows both, to perform a comparison between different registration algorithms and to evaluate their ability to locate the STN automatically. Using this scheme we can evaluate the expert variability against the error of the algorithms and we demonstrate that automatic STN location is possible and as accurate as the methods currently used.

Cross-validation of methods used for analysis of MTBE and other gasoline components in groundwater.

Head space gas chromatography with flame-ionization detection (HS-GC-FID), ancl purge and trap gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (P&T-GC-MS) have been used to determine methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene, toluene, and the ylenes (BTEX) in groundwater. In the work discussed in this paper measures of quality, e.g. recovery (94-111%), precision (4.6 - 12.2%), limits of detection (0.3 - 5.7 I~g L 1 for HS and 0.001 I~g L 1 for PT), and robust-ness, for both methods were compared. In addition, for purposes of comparison, groundwater samples from areas suffering from odor problems because of fuel spillage and tank leakage were analyzed by use of both techniques. For high concentration levels there was good correlation between results from both methods.

Cross-validation of methods used for analysis of MTBE and other gasoline components in groundwater.

Head space gas chromatography with flame-ionization detection (HS-GC-FID), ancl purge and trap gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (P&T-GC-MS) have been used to determine methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene, toluene, and the ylenes (BTEX) in groundwater. In the work discussed in this paper measures of quality, e.g. recovery (94-111%), precision (4.6 - 12.2%), limits of detection (0.3 - 5.7 I~g L 1 for HS and 0.001 I~g L 1 for PT), and robust-ness, for both methods were compared. In addition, for purposes of comparison, groundwater samples from areas suffering from odor problems because of fuel spillage and tank leakage were analyzed by use of both techniques. For high concentration levels there was good correlation between results from both methods.

Cross validation and segment support for stereo belief propagation

Typically, algorithms for generating stereo disparity maps have been developed to minimise the energy equation of a single image. This paper proposes a method for implementing cross validation in a belief propagation optimisation. When tested using the Middlebury online stereo evaluation, the cross validation improves upon the results of standard belief propagation. Furthermore, it has been shown that regions of homogeneous colour within the images can be used for enforcing the so-called "Segment Constraint". Developing from this, Segment Support is introduced to boost belief between pixels of the same image region and improve propagation into textureless regions.

Methane cross-validation between three Fourier Transform Spectrometers: SCISAT ACE-FTS, GOSAT TANSO-FTS, and ground-based FTS measurements in the Canadian high Arctic

We present cross-validation of remote sensing measurements of methane profiles in the Canadian high Arctic. Accurate and precise measurements of methane are essential to understand quantitatively its role in the climate system and in global change. Here, we show a cross-validation between three datasets: two from spaceborne instruments and one from a ground-based instrument. All are Fourier Transform Spectrometers (FTSs). We consider the Canadian SCISAT Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE)-FTS, a solar occultation infrared spectrometer operating since 2004, and the thermal infrared band of the Japanese Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) Thermal And Near infrared Sensor for carbon Observation (TANSO)-FTS, a nadir/off-nadir scanning FTS instrument operating at solar and terrestrial infrared wavelengths, since 2009. The ground-based instrument is a Bruker 125HR Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer, measuring mid-infrared solar absorption spectra at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) Ridge Lab at Eureka, Nunavut (80° N, 86° W) since 2006. For each pair of instruments, measurements are collocated within 500 km and 24 h. An additional criterion based on potential vorticity values was found not to significantly affect differences between measurements. Profiles are regridded to a common vertical grid for each comparison set. To account for differing vertical resolutions, ACE-FTS measurements are smoothed to the resolution of either PEARL-FTS or TANSO-FTS, and PEARL-FTS measurements are smoothed to the TANSO-FTS resolution. Differences for each pair are examined in terms of profile and partial columns. During the period considered, the number of collocations for each pair is large enough to obtain a good sample size (from several hundred to tens of thousands depending on pair and configuration). Considering full profiles, the degrees of freedom for signal (DOFS) are between 0.2 and 0.7 for TANSO-FTS and between 1.5 and 3 for PEARL-FTS, while ACE-FTS has considerably more information (roughly 1° of freedom per altitude level). We take partial columns between roughly 5 and 30 km for the ACE-FTS–PEARL-FTS comparison, and between 5 and 10 km for the other pairs. The DOFS for the partial columns are between 1.2 and 2 for PEARL-FTS collocated with ACE-FTS, between 0.1 and 0.5 for PEARL-FTS collocated with TANSO-FTS or for TANSO-FTS collocated with either other instrument, while ACE-FTS has much higher information content. For all pairs, the partial column differences are within ± 3 × 1022 molecules cm−2. Expressed as median ± median absolute deviation (expressed in absolute or relative terms), these differences are 0.11 ± 9.60 × 10^20 molecules cm−2 (0.012 ± 1.018 %) for TANSO-FTS–PEARL-FTS, −2.6 ± 2.6 × 10^21 molecules cm−2 (−1.6 ± 1.6 %) for ACE-FTS–PEARL-FTS, and 7.4 ± 6.0 × 10^20 molecules cm−2 (0.78 ± 0.64 %) for TANSO-FTS–ACE-FTS. The differences for ACE-FTS–PEARL-FTS and TANSO-FTS–PEARL-FTS partial columns decrease significantly as a function of PEARL partial columns, whereas the range of partial column values for TANSO-FTS–ACE-FTS collocations is too small to draw any conclusion on its dependence on ACE-FTS partial columns.

Fitting of Mixtures with Unspecified Number of Components Using Cross Validation Distance Estimate

Estimation of the number of mixture components (k) is an unsolved problem. Available methods for estimation of k include bootstrapping the likelihood ratio test statistics and optimizing a variety of validity functionals such as AIC, BIC/MDL, and ICOMP. We investigate the minimization of distance between fitted mixture model and the true density as a method for estimating k. The distances considered are Kullback-Leibler (KL) and “L sub 2”. We estimate these distances using cross validation. A reliable estimate of k is obtained by voting of B estimates of k corresponding to B cross validation estimates of distance. This estimation methods with KL distance is very similar to Monte Carlo cross validated likelihood methods discussed by Smyth (2000). With focus on univariate normal mixtures, we present simulation studies that compare the cross validated distance method with AIC, BIC/MDL, and ICOMP. We also apply the cross validation estimate of distance approach along with AIC, BIC/MDL and ICOMP approach, to data from an osteoporosis drug trial in order to find groups that differentially respond to treatment.

Selection bias and the cross-validation of regression models for prediction

Strategies are compared for the development of a linear regression model with stochastic (multivariate normal) regressor variables and the subsequent assessment of its predictive ability. Bias and mean squared error of four estimators of predictive performance are evaluated in simulated samples of 32 population correlation matrices. Models including all of the available predictors are compared with those obtained using selected subsets. The subset selection procedures investigated include two stopping rules, C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$, each combined with an 'all possible subsets' or 'forward selection' of variables. The estimators of performance utilized include parametric (MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$) and non-parametric (PRESS) assessments in the entire sample, and two data splitting estimates restricted to a random or balanced (Snee's DUPLEX) 'validation' half sample. The simulations were performed as a designed experiment, with population correlation matrices representing a broad range of data structures.^ The techniques examined for subset selection do not generally result in improved predictions relative to the full model. Approaches using 'forward selection' result in slightly smaller prediction errors and less biased estimators of predictive accuracy than 'all possible subsets' approaches but no differences are detected between the performances of C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$. In every case, prediction errors of models obtained by subset selection in either of the half splits exceed those obtained using all predictors and the entire sample.^ Only the random split estimator is conditionally (on $\\beta$) unbiased, however MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ is unbiased on average and PRESS is nearly so in unselected (fixed form) models. When subset selection techniques are used, MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ and PRESS always underestimate prediction errors, by as much as 27 percent (on average) in small samples. Despite their bias, the mean squared errors (MSE) of these estimators are at least 30 percent less than that of the unbiased random split estimator. The DUPLEX split estimator suffers from large MSE as well as bias, and seems of little value within the context of stochastic regressor variables.^ To maximize predictive accuracy while retaining a reliable estimate of that accuracy, it is recommended that the entire sample be used for model development, and a leave-one-out statistic (e.g. PRESS) be used for assessment. ^

Double cross-validation and improved sensitivity of the rapid screen of mild traumatic brain injury

This study aimed to replicate and cross-validate the Rapid Screen of Concussion (RSC) for diagnosing mild TBI (mTBI). One hundred (81 male, 19 female) cases of mTBI and 35 (23 male and 12 female) cases of orthopaedic injuries were tested within 24 hr of injury. Double cross-validation was used to examine whether total RSC scores obtained in the cur-rent sample, generalised to one previously reported. In the new sample, mTBI patients answered fewer orientation questions, recalled fewer words on the learning trial and after a delay, judged fewer sentences in 2 min, and completed fewer symbols in the Digit Symbol Substitution Test than orthopaedic controls. The formulae and cut-offs developed on the original and new samples produced similar sensitivity and overall correct classification rates. Inclusion of the Digit Symbol Substitution Test performance of the new sample improved the sensitivity (80.2%) and specificity (82.6%) in males. It did not improve the correct classification rate in females, which was 89.5% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity before the inclusion of the Digit Symbol Substitution Test. Taken together, these results indicate that a combined score on this 12-min screen yields a measure of level of brain impairment up to 24 hr after mTBI.

No free lunch for cross validation

It is known theoretically that an algorithm cannot be good for an arbitrary prior. We show that in practical terms this also applies to the technique of ``cross validation'', which has been widely regarded as defying this general rule. Numerical examples are analysed in detail. Their implications to researches on learning algorithms are discussed.

Meta-analysis and cross-validation of a hyperglycemic status predictor model based on salivary glucose

Poster presented at the First International Congress of CiiEM - From Basic Sciences To Clinical Research. Egas Moniz, Caparica, Portugal, 27-28 November 2015.