ArticleSystems biology in reproductive medicine2018
Bayesian analysis improves pulse secretion characterization in reproductive hormones.
Article in Systems biology in reproductive medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- HormoneBayes: A novel Bayesian framework for the analysis of pulsatile hormone dynamics.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- A practical guide to adopting Bayesian analyses in clinical research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pulsatile secretion of hormones in the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis is critical for normal functioning of the reproductive system. Thus, appropriate characterization of pulsatile secretion is important for identifying the (patho)physiology of reproductive conditions. Existing analysis methods often fail to adequately characterize pulsatility, especially when the signal-to-noise ratio is low. Newer Bayesian analysis methods for pulsatile hormones may offer improved secretion quantification in noisier data. The objective of this study was to extensively validate a Bayesian analysis approach for analyzing pulsatile hormones in settings that occur in reproductive studies. An investigative approach was chosen so that clinical research teams will have the knowledge to adopt this newer analysis approach in practice. Three experimental conditions were investigated: luteinizing hormone (LH) profiles in ovariectomized ewes (N=6; high signal-to-noise setting), LH profiles in young ovulating women (N=12; lower signal-to-noise setting), and computer-simulated scenarios (N=200). For each experimental condition, differences in luteinizing hormone pulse outcomes (pulse number, average pulse size, hormone half-life, and non-pulse secretion) were obtained and compared between non-Bayesian and Bayesian analysis pulse analysis methods. For the ewe model, the estimated pulse number and mass were comparable between the Bayesian and non-Bayesian analyses. For the human model, only 4 of 12 subjects could be fitted with the non-Bayesian analysis compared to 10 of the 12 with Bayesian analysis. In general, the Bayesian analysis had lower false negative rates (<4.5%) compared to the non-Bayesian analysis while maintaining a high specificity (false positive rate <2.5%). The Bayesian analysis also had less biased estimates of all pulse features. In conclusion, Bayesian analysis provides a more reliable pulse characterization in low signal-to-noise experiments and should be used for the analysis of reproductive physiology studies of pulsatile hormones. Software is available at www.github.com/BayesPulse . ABBREVIATIONS: LH: luteinizing hormone; FSH: follicle stimulating hormone; GnRH: gonadotropin-releasing hormone; FP: false positive; FN: false negative.
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.