Common Pitfalls in Analysis of Tissue Scores

David K. Meyerholz, Nathan L. Tintle, Amanda P. Beck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Histopathology remains an important source of descriptive biological data in biomedical research. Recent petitions for enhanced reproducibility in scientific studies have elevated the role of tissue scoring (semiquantitative and quantitative) in research studies. Effective tissue scoring requires appropriate statistical analysis to help validate the group comparisons and give the pathologist confidence in interpreting the data. Each statistical test is typically founded on underlying assumptions regarding the data. If the underlying assumptions of a statistical test do not match the data, then these tests can lead to increased risk of erroneous interpretations of the data. The choice of appropriate statistical test is influenced by the study’s experimental design and resultant data (eg, paired vs unpaired, normality, number of groups, etc). Here, we identify 3 common pitfalls in the analysis of tissue scores: shopping for significance, overuse of paired t-tests, and misguided analysis of multiple groups. Finally, we encourage pathologists to use the full breadth of resources available to them, such as using statistical software, reading key publications about statistical approaches, and identifying a statistician to serve as a collaborator on the multidisciplinary research team. These collective resources can be helpful in choosing the appropriate statistical test for tissue-scoring data to provide the most valid interpretation for the pathologist.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalVeterinary Pathology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

tissue analysis
statistical analysis
Research
biomedical research
Publications
Biomedical Research
Reading
Research Design
Software
histopathology
reproducibility
quantitative analysis
experimental design
Pathologists
tissues
testing

Keywords

  • grading
  • lesions
  • pathology
  • pitfalls
  • reproducibility
  • scoring
  • statistics
  • tissues

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Common Pitfalls in Analysis of Tissue Scores. / Meyerholz, David K.; Tintle, Nathan L.; Beck, Amanda P.

In: Veterinary Pathology, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Meyerholz, David K. ; Tintle, Nathan L. ; Beck, Amanda P. / Common Pitfalls in Analysis of Tissue Scores. In: Veterinary Pathology. 2018.
@article{d867ce2c13f24877b17d982a53a11972,
title = "Common Pitfalls in Analysis of Tissue Scores",
abstract = "Histopathology remains an important source of descriptive biological data in biomedical research. Recent petitions for enhanced reproducibility in scientific studies have elevated the role of tissue scoring (semiquantitative and quantitative) in research studies. Effective tissue scoring requires appropriate statistical analysis to help validate the group comparisons and give the pathologist confidence in interpreting the data. Each statistical test is typically founded on underlying assumptions regarding the data. If the underlying assumptions of a statistical test do not match the data, then these tests can lead to increased risk of erroneous interpretations of the data. The choice of appropriate statistical test is influenced by the study’s experimental design and resultant data (eg, paired vs unpaired, normality, number of groups, etc). Here, we identify 3 common pitfalls in the analysis of tissue scores: shopping for significance, overuse of paired t-tests, and misguided analysis of multiple groups. Finally, we encourage pathologists to use the full breadth of resources available to them, such as using statistical software, reading key publications about statistical approaches, and identifying a statistician to serve as a collaborator on the multidisciplinary research team. These collective resources can be helpful in choosing the appropriate statistical test for tissue-scoring data to provide the most valid interpretation for the pathologist.",
keywords = "grading, lesions, pathology, pitfalls, reproducibility, scoring, statistics, tissues",
author = "Meyerholz, {David K.} and Tintle, {Nathan L.} and Beck, {Amanda P.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0300985818794250",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Veterinary Pathology",
issn = "0300-9858",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Common Pitfalls in Analysis of Tissue Scores

AU - Meyerholz, David K.

AU - Tintle, Nathan L.

AU - Beck, Amanda P.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Histopathology remains an important source of descriptive biological data in biomedical research. Recent petitions for enhanced reproducibility in scientific studies have elevated the role of tissue scoring (semiquantitative and quantitative) in research studies. Effective tissue scoring requires appropriate statistical analysis to help validate the group comparisons and give the pathologist confidence in interpreting the data. Each statistical test is typically founded on underlying assumptions regarding the data. If the underlying assumptions of a statistical test do not match the data, then these tests can lead to increased risk of erroneous interpretations of the data. The choice of appropriate statistical test is influenced by the study’s experimental design and resultant data (eg, paired vs unpaired, normality, number of groups, etc). Here, we identify 3 common pitfalls in the analysis of tissue scores: shopping for significance, overuse of paired t-tests, and misguided analysis of multiple groups. Finally, we encourage pathologists to use the full breadth of resources available to them, such as using statistical software, reading key publications about statistical approaches, and identifying a statistician to serve as a collaborator on the multidisciplinary research team. These collective resources can be helpful in choosing the appropriate statistical test for tissue-scoring data to provide the most valid interpretation for the pathologist.

AB - Histopathology remains an important source of descriptive biological data in biomedical research. Recent petitions for enhanced reproducibility in scientific studies have elevated the role of tissue scoring (semiquantitative and quantitative) in research studies. Effective tissue scoring requires appropriate statistical analysis to help validate the group comparisons and give the pathologist confidence in interpreting the data. Each statistical test is typically founded on underlying assumptions regarding the data. If the underlying assumptions of a statistical test do not match the data, then these tests can lead to increased risk of erroneous interpretations of the data. The choice of appropriate statistical test is influenced by the study’s experimental design and resultant data (eg, paired vs unpaired, normality, number of groups, etc). Here, we identify 3 common pitfalls in the analysis of tissue scores: shopping for significance, overuse of paired t-tests, and misguided analysis of multiple groups. Finally, we encourage pathologists to use the full breadth of resources available to them, such as using statistical software, reading key publications about statistical approaches, and identifying a statistician to serve as a collaborator on the multidisciplinary research team. These collective resources can be helpful in choosing the appropriate statistical test for tissue-scoring data to provide the most valid interpretation for the pathologist.

KW - grading

KW - lesions

KW - pathology

KW - pitfalls

KW - reproducibility

KW - scoring

KW - statistics

KW - tissues

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052577358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052577358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0300985818794250

DO - 10.1177/0300985818794250

M3 - Article

JO - Veterinary Pathology

JF - Veterinary Pathology

SN - 0300-9858

ER -