True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention

New Findings What is the topic of this review? In ‘personalized medicine’, various plots and analyses are purported to quantify individual differences in intervention response, identify responders/non‐responders and explore response moderators or mediators. What advances does it highlight? We highli...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Experimental physiology 2015-06, Vol.100 (6), p.577-588
Hauptverfasser: Atkinson, Greg, Batterham, Alan M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 588
container_issue 6
container_start_page 577
container_title Experimental physiology
container_volume 100
creator Atkinson, Greg
Batterham, Alan M.
description New Findings What is the topic of this review? In ‘personalized medicine’, various plots and analyses are purported to quantify individual differences in intervention response, identify responders/non‐responders and explore response moderators or mediators. What advances does it highlight? We highlight the impact of within‐subject random variation, which is inevitable even with ‘gold‐standard’ measurement tools/protocols and sometimes so substantial that it explains all apparent individual response differences. True individual response differences are quantified only by comparing the SDs of changes between intervention and comparator arms. When these SDs are similar, true individual response differences are clinically unimportant and further analysis unwarranted. Within the ‘hot topic’ of personalized medicine, we scrutinize common approaches for presenting and quantifying individual differences in the physiological response to an intervention. First, we explain how popular plots used to present individual differences in response are contaminated by random within‐subject variation and the regression to the mean artefact. Using a simulated data set of blood pressure measurements, we show that large individual differences in physiological response can be suggested by some plots and analyses, even when the true magnitude of response is exactly the same in all individuals. Second, we present the appropriate designs and analysis approaches for quantifying the true interindividual variation in physiological response. It is imperative to include a comparator arm/condition (or derive information from a prior relevant repeatability study) to quantify true interindividual differences in response. The most important statistic is the SD of changes in the intervention arm, which should be compared with the same SD in the comparator arm or from a prior repeatability study in the same population conducted over the same duration as the particular intervention. Only if the difference between these SDs is clinically relevant is it logical to go on to explore any moderators or mediators of the intervention effect that might explain the individual response. To date, very few researchers have compared these SDs before making claims about individual differences in physiological response and their importance to personalized medicine.
doi_str_mv 10.1113/EP085070
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1687641877</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3709503411</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5584-e115c670bf34b84b748d640039cd81022a8d7a944c532750a6dbf44ea3b7b92f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKxDAUhoMozngBn0AKbtxUk-bapQzeYEAXIwguStqcaoZOMiatMm9vdEYFwdU5cL7z8fMjdETwGSGEnl_eY8WxxFtoTJgoc8b44zYa45KrHAuJR2gvxjnGhGLFdtGo4KqgvBRj9DQLA2TamazVXYTMuh6Cdca-WTPoLjO2bSGAayCmW9a_QLZ8WUXrO_9smwQEiEvv0mfvk2b9_waut94doJ0v6eFm7qOHq8vZ5Caf3l3fTi6mecO5YjkQwpsUsm4pqxWrJVNGMIxp2RhFcFFoZaQuGWs4LSTHWpi6ZQw0rWVdFi3dR6dr7zL41wFiXy1sbKDrtAM_xIoIJQUjSsqEnvxB534ILqX7pETJVIr0K2yCjzFAWy2DXeiwqgiuPguvvgtP6PFGONQLMD_gd8MJyNfAu-1g9a8oLTdEFIx-AHcZh-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1686948558</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Atkinson, Greg ; Batterham, Alan M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Greg ; Batterham, Alan M.</creatorcontrib><description>New Findings What is the topic of this review? In ‘personalized medicine’, various plots and analyses are purported to quantify individual differences in intervention response, identify responders/non‐responders and explore response moderators or mediators. What advances does it highlight? We highlight the impact of within‐subject random variation, which is inevitable even with ‘gold‐standard’ measurement tools/protocols and sometimes so substantial that it explains all apparent individual response differences. True individual response differences are quantified only by comparing the SDs of changes between intervention and comparator arms. When these SDs are similar, true individual response differences are clinically unimportant and further analysis unwarranted. Within the ‘hot topic’ of personalized medicine, we scrutinize common approaches for presenting and quantifying individual differences in the physiological response to an intervention. First, we explain how popular plots used to present individual differences in response are contaminated by random within‐subject variation and the regression to the mean artefact. Using a simulated data set of blood pressure measurements, we show that large individual differences in physiological response can be suggested by some plots and analyses, even when the true magnitude of response is exactly the same in all individuals. Second, we present the appropriate designs and analysis approaches for quantifying the true interindividual variation in physiological response. It is imperative to include a comparator arm/condition (or derive information from a prior relevant repeatability study) to quantify true interindividual differences in response. The most important statistic is the SD of changes in the intervention arm, which should be compared with the same SD in the comparator arm or from a prior repeatability study in the same population conducted over the same duration as the particular intervention. Only if the difference between these SDs is clinically relevant is it logical to go on to explore any moderators or mediators of the intervention effect that might explain the individual response. To date, very few researchers have compared these SDs before making claims about individual differences in physiological response and their importance to personalized medicine.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0958-0670</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-445X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1113/EP085070</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25823596</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Adaptation, Physiological ; Blood Pressure ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Exercise - physiology ; Humans ; Models, Statistical ; Precision Medicine - standards ; Precision Medicine - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design - standards ; Research Design - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><ispartof>Experimental physiology, 2015-06, Vol.100 (6), p.577-588</ispartof><rights>2015 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2015 The Physiological Society</rights><rights>2015 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2015 The Physiological Society.</rights><rights>2015 The Physiological Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5584-e115c670bf34b84b748d640039cd81022a8d7a944c532750a6dbf44ea3b7b92f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5584-e115c670bf34b84b748d640039cd81022a8d7a944c532750a6dbf44ea3b7b92f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1113%2FEP085070$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113%2FEP085070$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25823596$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Batterham, Alan M.</creatorcontrib><title>True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention</title><title>Experimental physiology</title><addtitle>Exp Physiol</addtitle><description>New Findings What is the topic of this review? In ‘personalized medicine’, various plots and analyses are purported to quantify individual differences in intervention response, identify responders/non‐responders and explore response moderators or mediators. What advances does it highlight? We highlight the impact of within‐subject random variation, which is inevitable even with ‘gold‐standard’ measurement tools/protocols and sometimes so substantial that it explains all apparent individual response differences. True individual response differences are quantified only by comparing the SDs of changes between intervention and comparator arms. When these SDs are similar, true individual response differences are clinically unimportant and further analysis unwarranted. Within the ‘hot topic’ of personalized medicine, we scrutinize common approaches for presenting and quantifying individual differences in the physiological response to an intervention. First, we explain how popular plots used to present individual differences in response are contaminated by random within‐subject variation and the regression to the mean artefact. Using a simulated data set of blood pressure measurements, we show that large individual differences in physiological response can be suggested by some plots and analyses, even when the true magnitude of response is exactly the same in all individuals. Second, we present the appropriate designs and analysis approaches for quantifying the true interindividual variation in physiological response. It is imperative to include a comparator arm/condition (or derive information from a prior relevant repeatability study) to quantify true interindividual differences in response. The most important statistic is the SD of changes in the intervention arm, which should be compared with the same SD in the comparator arm or from a prior repeatability study in the same population conducted over the same duration as the particular intervention. Only if the difference between these SDs is clinically relevant is it logical to go on to explore any moderators or mediators of the intervention effect that might explain the individual response. To date, very few researchers have compared these SDs before making claims about individual differences in physiological response and their importance to personalized medicine.</description><subject>Adaptation, Physiological</subject><subject>Blood Pressure</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Exercise - physiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Precision Medicine - standards</subject><subject>Precision Medicine - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>Research Design - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><issn>0958-0670</issn><issn>1469-445X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKxDAUhoMozngBn0AKbtxUk-bapQzeYEAXIwguStqcaoZOMiatMm9vdEYFwdU5cL7z8fMjdETwGSGEnl_eY8WxxFtoTJgoc8b44zYa45KrHAuJR2gvxjnGhGLFdtGo4KqgvBRj9DQLA2TamazVXYTMuh6Cdca-WTPoLjO2bSGAayCmW9a_QLZ8WUXrO_9smwQEiEvv0mfvk2b9_waut94doJ0v6eFm7qOHq8vZ5Caf3l3fTi6mecO5YjkQwpsUsm4pqxWrJVNGMIxp2RhFcFFoZaQuGWs4LSTHWpi6ZQw0rWVdFi3dR6dr7zL41wFiXy1sbKDrtAM_xIoIJQUjSsqEnvxB534ILqX7pETJVIr0K2yCjzFAWy2DXeiwqgiuPguvvgtP6PFGONQLMD_gd8MJyNfAu-1g9a8oLTdEFIx-AHcZh-A</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Atkinson, Greg</creator><creator>Batterham, Alan M.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention</title><author>Atkinson, Greg ; Batterham, Alan M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5584-e115c670bf34b84b748d640039cd81022a8d7a944c532750a6dbf44ea3b7b92f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adaptation, Physiological</topic><topic>Blood Pressure</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Exercise - physiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Precision Medicine - standards</topic><topic>Precision Medicine - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>Research Design - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Batterham, Alan M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Experimental physiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Atkinson, Greg</au><au>Batterham, Alan M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention</atitle><jtitle>Experimental physiology</jtitle><addtitle>Exp Physiol</addtitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>100</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>577</spage><epage>588</epage><pages>577-588</pages><issn>0958-0670</issn><eissn>1469-445X</eissn><abstract>New Findings What is the topic of this review? In ‘personalized medicine’, various plots and analyses are purported to quantify individual differences in intervention response, identify responders/non‐responders and explore response moderators or mediators. What advances does it highlight? We highlight the impact of within‐subject random variation, which is inevitable even with ‘gold‐standard’ measurement tools/protocols and sometimes so substantial that it explains all apparent individual response differences. True individual response differences are quantified only by comparing the SDs of changes between intervention and comparator arms. When these SDs are similar, true individual response differences are clinically unimportant and further analysis unwarranted. Within the ‘hot topic’ of personalized medicine, we scrutinize common approaches for presenting and quantifying individual differences in the physiological response to an intervention. First, we explain how popular plots used to present individual differences in response are contaminated by random within‐subject variation and the regression to the mean artefact. Using a simulated data set of blood pressure measurements, we show that large individual differences in physiological response can be suggested by some plots and analyses, even when the true magnitude of response is exactly the same in all individuals. Second, we present the appropriate designs and analysis approaches for quantifying the true interindividual variation in physiological response. It is imperative to include a comparator arm/condition (or derive information from a prior relevant repeatability study) to quantify true interindividual differences in response. The most important statistic is the SD of changes in the intervention arm, which should be compared with the same SD in the comparator arm or from a prior repeatability study in the same population conducted over the same duration as the particular intervention. Only if the difference between these SDs is clinically relevant is it logical to go on to explore any moderators or mediators of the intervention effect that might explain the individual response. To date, very few researchers have compared these SDs before making claims about individual differences in physiological response and their importance to personalized medicine.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>25823596</pmid><doi>10.1113/EP085070</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0958-0670
ispartof Experimental physiology, 2015-06, Vol.100 (6), p.577-588
issn 0958-0670
1469-445X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1687641877
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)
subjects Adaptation, Physiological
Blood Pressure
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Exercise - physiology
Humans
Models, Statistical
Precision Medicine - standards
Precision Medicine - statistics & numerical data
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design - standards
Research Design - statistics & numerical data
title True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T07%3A34%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=True%20and%20false%20interindividual%20differences%20in%20the%20physiological%20response%20to%20an%20intervention&rft.jtitle=Experimental%20physiology&rft.au=Atkinson,%20Greg&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=577&rft.epage=588&rft.pages=577-588&rft.issn=0958-0670&rft.eissn=1469-445X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1113/EP085070&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3709503411%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1686948558&rft_id=info:pmid/25823596&rfr_iscdi=true