ArticleBiomarkers in medicine2015
Independent validation test of the vote-counting strategy used to rank biomarkers from published studies.
Article in Biomarkers in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biomarker discovery in NAFLD: insights from metabolomics and vote counting meta-analysis.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025Pooled it
- Perturbations in gut microbiota in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of microRNA expression profiling studies in heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of gut microbiota modulation on feeding tolerance of enterally fed critically ill adult patients: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- MicroRNA meta-signature of oral cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2018Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of clinical metabolic profiling studies in cancer: challenges and opportunities.EMBO molecular medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Diagnostic value of microRNAs in asbestos exposure and malignant mesothelioma: systematic review and qualitative meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2016Pooled it
- TranDep: a transcriptomics atlas of depression.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Differential protein network and biological functions atlas from multi-tissue proteomics in patients with depression.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- PsycGM: a comprehensive database for associations between gut microbiota and psychiatric disorders.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- Characterizing metabolomic and proteomic changes in depression: a systematic analysis.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- ProMENDA: an updated resource for proteomic and metabolomic characterization in depression.Translational psychiatry · 2024Article
- Alterations of the gut microbiota in patients with schizophrenia.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Article
- Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Discovery of Synergistic Drug Combinations for Colorectal Cancer Driven by Tumor Barcode Derived from Metabolomics "Big Data".Metabolites · 2022Article
- Effects of pharmacological treatment on metabolomic alterations in animal models of depression.Translational psychiatry · 2022Article
- Article
- Integrative OMICS Data-Driven Procedure Using a Derivatized Meta-Analysis Approach.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Metabolomic changes in animal models of depression: a systematic analysis.Molecular psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimVote counting is frequently used in meta-analyses to rank biomarker candidates, but to our knowledge, there have been no independent assessments of its validity. Here, we used predictions from a recent meta-analysis to determine how well number of supporting studies, combined sample size and mean fold change performed as vote-counting strategy criteria. MATERIALS &
methodsFifty miRNAs previously ranked for their ability to distinguish lung cancer tissue from normal were assayed by RT-qPCR using 45 paired tumor-normal samples.
resultsNumber of supporting studies predicted biomarker performance (p = 0.0006; r = 0.44), but sample size and fold change did not (p > 0.2).
conclusionDespite limitations, counting the number supporting studies appears to be an effective criterion for ranking biomarkers. Predictions based on sample size and fold change provided little added value. External validation studies should be conducted to establish the performance characteristics of strategies used to rank 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.