ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2009
Improving the biomarker pipeline to develop and evaluate cancer screening tests.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer: When Is a Biomarker Ready for Clinical Use? An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Guideline
- Trial
- Circulating microRNAs as a Fingerprint for Liver Cirrhosis.PloS one · 2013Trial
- Article
- Prediagnostic evaluation of multicancer detection tests: design and analysis considerations.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- A microRNA-based liquid biopsy signature for the early detection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective, prospective and multicenter study.Molecular cancer · 2022Article
- Nested case-control data analysis using weighted conditional logistic regression in The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study: A novel approach.Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2020Article
- Simple Methods for Evaluating 4 Types of Biomarkers: Surrogate Endpoint, Prognostic, Predictive, and Cancer Screening.Biomarker insights · 2020Review
- Cancer Screening Markers: A Simple Strategy to Substantially Reduce the Sample Size for Validation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Study Design Considerations for Cancer Biomarker Discoveries.The journal of applied laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Direct and multiplex quantification of protein biomarkers in serum samples using an immuno-magnetic platform.Chemical science · 2016Article
- Latent class instrumental variables: a clinical and biostatistical perspective.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
- RE: Leveraging Biospecimen Resources for Discovery or Validation of Markers for Early Cancer Detection.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015Article
- Microarray Meta-Analysis and Cross-Platform Normalization: Integrative Genomics for Robust Biomarker Discovery.Microarrays (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Review
- Improving the quality of biomarker discovery research: the right samples and enough of them.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015Article
- A cancer theory kerfuffle can lead to new lines of research.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015Article
- Biomarker discovery study design for type 1 diabetes in The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study.Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2014Article
- Urinary transforming growth factor α and serum α-fetoprotein as tumor markers of hepatocellular carcinoma.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014Article
- Additional thoughts on causal inference, probability theory, and graphical insights.Statistics in medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The biomarker pipeline to develop and evaluate cancer screening tests has three stages: identification of promising biomarkers for the early detection of cancer, initial evaluation of biomarkers for cancer screening, and definitive evaluation of biomarkers for cancer screening. Statistical and biological issues to improve this pipeline are discussed. Although various recommendations, such as identifying cases based on clinical symptoms, keeping biomarker tests simple, and adjusting for postscreening noise, have been made previously, they are not widely known. New recommendations include more frequent specimen collection to help identify promising biomarkers and the use of the paired availability design with interval cases (symptomatic cancers detected in the interval after screening) for initial evaluation of biomarkers for cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.