ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2010
Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
82 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Urinary extracellular vesicles: A position paper by the Urine Task Force of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2021Guideline
- 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
- A systematic review of serum autoantibodies as biomarkers for pancreatic cancer detection.Oncotarget · 2016Pooled it
- Humoral response to a viral glycan correlates with survival on PROSTVAC-VF.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Trial
- Clinical Translatable and Transparency of Neural Network for Blood-Based Personalized Cancer Risk.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Article
- Molecular and statistical weaknesses of the p-tau217/AβJournal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- A Practical Roadmap for Clinical Translation of Metabolic Biomarkers: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Optimizing Tissue Sampling Timing for Accurate Gene Expression Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- ENIGMA+: a national, decentralized, remote consent study for clinical data and biospecimen collection in patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.The oncologist · 2025Observational
- Biorepositories For Global Rare Disease Research: A Narrative Review.Current rheumatology reports · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the ReLASV Pan-Lassa Antigen Rapid Test for Lassa Fever in Nigeria.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Prostate Cancer: A Review of Genetics, Current Biomarkers and Personalised Treatments.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Review
- Machine learning to detect the SINEs of cancer.Science translational medicine · 2024Article
- Imaging biobanks: operational limits, medical-legal and ethical reflections.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Review
- Current State of Knowledge on Blood and Tissue-Based Biomarkers for Opisthorchis viverrini-induced Cholangiocarcinoma: A Review of Prognostic, Predictive, and Diagnostic Markers.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Review
- MS-Based Proteomics of Body Fluids: The End of the Beginning.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2023Article
- Assessment of Current Practices Across Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers Biorepositories.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2023Article
- Biomarker Discovery and Validation: Statistical Considerations.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2021Article
- A Biomarker-Centric Approach to Drug Discovery and Development: Lessons Learned from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2021Review
- Biochemically Tracked Variability of Blood Plasma Thawed-State Exposure Times in a Multisite Collection Study.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2020Article
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Claims about the diagnostic or prognostic accuracy of markers often prove disappointing when "discrimination" found between cancers versus normals is due to bias, a systematic difference between compared groups. This article describes a framework to help simplify and organize current problems in marker research by focusing on the role of specimens as a source of bias in observational research and using that focus to address problems and improve reliability. The central idea is that the "fundamental comparison" in research about markers (ie, the comparison done to assess whether a marker discriminates) involves two distinct processes that are "connected" by specimens. If subject selection (first process) creates baseline inequality between groups being compared, then laboratory analysis of specimens (second process) may erroneously find positive results. Although both processes are important, subject selection more fundamentally influences the quality of marker research, because it can hardwire bias into all comparisons in a way that cannot be corrected by any refinement in laboratory analysis. An appreciation of the separateness of these two processes-and placing investigators with appropriate expertise in charge of each-may increase the reliability of research about cancer biomarkers.
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.