Journal of Neuroinformatics and Neuroimaging

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (202) 780-3397

Commentary - Journal of Neuroinformatics and Neuroimaging (2022) Volume 7, Issue 1

Criteria or challenges ascribing for a biomarker utility system of a neuroimaging.

Jean Claire*

Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA

*Corresponding Author:
Jean Claire
Department of Behavioral Neuroscience
University of Chicago, Chicago, USA

Received: 23-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. AANN-22-102; Editor assigned: 25-Jan-2022, PreQC No. AANN -22-102(PQ); Reviewed: 10-Feb-2022, QC No. AANN -22-102; Revised: 14-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. AANN -22-102(R); Published: 21-Feb-2022, DOI:10.35841/aann-7.1.102

Citation: Claire J. Criteria or challenges ascribing for a biomarker utility system of a neuroimaging. J NeuroInform Neuroimaging. 2022;7(1):102

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Neuroinformatics and Neuroimaging


The brain is a magnificent organ allowing its owner to interact with other beings and objects, to flexibly adapt to ever changing situations, to predict and – in human beings – to reflect. One may wonder, how does the brain with its about 85 billion neurons and its trillions of connections and synapses accomplish this multifaceted, miraculous task estimated numbers in the human brain.


Vestibular, Neurotology, Neurodevelopment.


In many businesses, the process of comparing to an industry standard called benchmarking has helped to accelerate development. We require an expansion in scholar and modern commitment in giving approved principles to biomarkers in clinical preliminaries (benchmark). These norms ought to specially be adaptable (generally minimal expense and accessible) and vigorous (impervious to test-retest and multicenter changeability). Under these preconditions, consideration of these norms in public and worldwide rules will absolutely be worked [1].

The fundamental explanations behind the current absence of approval are the restricted likeness and generalizability of studies in mix with an overall sparsity of corroborative reports and a functional nonexistence of affirmation of type and dissemination of pathology (posthumous). Likeness is unquestionably obstructed by an extraordinary fluctuation in specialized techniques for obtaining and handling, yet in addition in the way that the expected utility of the biomarker is portrayed. Albeit many examinations allude to a possible use as a biomarker in the determinations, a couple of them give a functional definition concerning how precisely the biomarker ought to be utilized. In addition, the factual means by which the utility is depicted are variable and at times lacking. For instance, albeit the capability of the biomarker as an analytic instrument is talked about, proportions of test precision (e.g., region under the ROC bend) are not announced. Generalizability, then again, is restricted by the way that concentrates commonly center around explicit aggregates (e.g., PSP with Richardson Syndrome, PSP-RS), making its application in different variations sketchy (e.g., PSP with moderate stride freezing). One more significant impediment of generalizability is somewhat little example sizes, commonly from a solitary clinical focus. What's more, an exploratory methodology in comfort tests while surely at times reasonable in original methodologies limits appropriateness in a clinical preliminary because of potential determination inclinations. An instrument to resolve these issues is oversee associates for imaging studies as a "mock" clinical preliminary, including rigid and reproducible review plans point by point in preliminary conventions [2].

We propose that the progression of normalized neuroimaging in the field will be facilitated by a clear cut reference outline for the utility of biomarkers. We contend that the as of now most significant areas of utilization incorporate indicative biomarkers for early clinical conclusion, demonstrative biomarkers for a particular pathology, and checking biomarkers for illness movement that qualify as substitute end focuses.

To resolve these issues and to reach an international consensus on propositions to overcome the main challenges, we held two JPND-sponsored workshops in 2017. As a consensus outcome, we recommend a formal utility description system in response to the challenges outlined previously. As a conceptual framework, we propose a graded system for the description of utility of a specific neuroimaging measure [3].

Our determination interaction for the classifications and grades of the framework was chiefly directed by what are presently the most helpful boundaries for a clinical preliminary in AP sooner rather than later. This approach was decided to give the fundamental harmony among intricacy and appropriateness of the framework. We in this way included separate classes for the capacity to precisely distinguish an aim to-treat patient populace from the get-go over infection, to precisely recognize a particular fundamental pathology, and the capacity to screen illness movement. We meant to furnish a somewhat instinctive framework with generally simple functional definitions.


We started from the position that a diagnostic biomarker has to be more accurate than a quasi-simultaneous clinical examination for it to be of particular use. Because current diagnostic criteria are still tailored to clinical entities, we focused on biomarker properties regarding “the earlier, the better” diagnosis of clinical entities. We propose three grades:

The biomarker accurately identifies a clinical entity in absence of clinical symptoms.

The biomarker accurately identifies a clinical entity in presence of symptoms but before clinical criteria are met.

The biomarker accurately identifies a clinical entity only after clinical diagnostic criteria are met. It should be noted that diagnostic biomarkers of this category may still have utility, for example, when the accuracy with respect to long-term follow-up diagnosis is increased by including the biomarker in the assessment of the patient.

For a clinical diagnosis, it seems reasonable that the gold standard should be the diagnosis of a movement disorders specialist after a long-term follow-up. For optimal assessment of utility of a biomarker, the specialist should be blinded to the biomarker outcome, to avoid biasing the clinical decision. The exact statistical value that appropriately describes accuracy of the test may vary, but there are certain rules-of-thumb: specificity may be more important than sensitivity when the biomarker should be used for sample stratification in a clinical trial. For some scenarios, the predictive value of the test is more informative than its sensitivity and specificity. The predictive value strongly depends on the a priori probability of the disease in the patients undergoing the test (which can be influenced by referral bias and regional prevalence). On the other hand, the same will apply for the predictive value of the clinical examination. Therefore, we propose that the predictive value of the biomarker should always be seen in relation to the predictive value of the clinical examination [4].


  1. Hoenig MC, Bischof GN, Hammes J, et al. Tau pathology and cognitive reserve in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of aging, 2017;57:1-7.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Whitwell JL., Höglinger GU, Antonini A, et al. Radiological biomarkers for diagnosis in PSP: where are we and where do we need to be?. Movement Disorders, 2017;32(7):955-971.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Strafella AP, Bohnen NI, Perlmutter JS, et al. Molecular imaging to track Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonisms: new imaging frontiers. Movement Disorders, 2017;32(2): 181-192.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Strafella AP, Bohnen NI, Pavese N, et al. Imaging markers of progression in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice, 2018;5(6):586-596.
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App