Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26109105›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2015

Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, and NPV for Predictive Biomarkers.

Richard Simon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A Reproducibility Crisis for Clinical Metabolomics Studies.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Experimental laboratory biomarkers in multiple sclerosis.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Utility of Serum Ki-67 as a Marker for Malignancy in Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Richard SimonRichard Simon, DSc, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD. rsimon@nih.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecularly targeted cancer drugs are often developed with companion diagnostics that attempt to identify which patients will have better outcome on the new drug than the control regimen. Such predictive biomarkers are playing an increasingly important role in precision oncology. For diagnostic tests, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive are usually used as performance measures. This paper discusses these indices for predictive biomarkers, provides methods for their calculation with survival or response endpoints, and describes assumptions involved in their use.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorMolecular Targeted TherapyPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityAntineoplastic AgentsHumansMathematical ComputingTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID26109105
PMCPMC4609556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.