ArticlePloS one2019
A computational solution to improve biomarker reproducibility during long-term projects.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A single-blind, randomized, controlled contingency management trial on physiological indices and biomarkers of cardiovascular health in people with cocaine use disorder.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2025Trial
- Influence of cocaine use reduction on markers of immune function.Journal of neuroimmunology · 2024Trial
- FGF21 contributes to metabolic improvements elicited by combination therapy with exenatide and pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes.American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Trial
- Molecular correlates of response to eribulin and pembrolizumab in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.Nature communications · 2021Trial
- Astrocyte-derived extracellular vesicle phosphorylated TDP-43 as a blood-based biomarker for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Neurobiology of disease · 2026Article
- Serum Autophagy-Related Protein 5 and Clinically Defined Cognitive Status in Older Adults: A Plate-Stratified Cross-Sectional Study Across: Normal Cognition, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Contemporary Challenges in Venous Thromboembolism: Evolving Populations and Implications for Management and Risk Stratification.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Dual tissue mRNA and serum protein signatures improve risk stratification in hepatocellular carcinoma.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Exploring In Vitro Mesenchymal Stem Cell Osteodifferentiation via Vibrational Microspectroscopy: A Review.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Review
- Metabolic markers detect early ostedifferentiation of mesenchymal stem cells from multiple donors.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Article
- Trimer IgG and neutralising antibody response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in individuals with sarcoidosis.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Molecular diagnostics in neurotrauma: Are there reliable biomarkers and effective methods for their detection?Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomarkers are fundamental to basic and clinical research outcomes by reporting host responses and providing insight into disease pathophysiology. Measuring biomarkers with research-use ELISA kits is universal, yet lack of kit standardization and unexpected lot-to-lot variability presents analytic challenges for long-term projects. During an ongoing two-year project measuring plasma biomarkers in cancer patients, control concentrations for one biomarker (PF) decreased significantly after changes in ELISA kit lots. A comprehensive operations review pointed to standard curve shifts with the new kits, an analytic variable that jeopardized data already collected on hundreds of patient samples. After excluding other reasonable contributors to data variability, a computational solution was developed to provide a uniform platform for data analysis across multiple ELISA kit lots. The solution (ELISAtools) was developed within open-access R software in which variability between kits is treated as a batch effect. A defined best-fit Reference standard curve is modelled, a unique Shift factor "S" is calculated for every standard curve and data adjusted accordingly. The averaged S factors for PF ELISA kit lots #1-5 ranged from -0.086 to 0.735, and reduced control inter-assay variability from 62.4% to <9%, within quality control limits. S factors calculated for four other biomarkers provided a quantitative metric to monitor ELISAs over the 10 month study period for quality control purposes. Reproducible biomarker measurements are essential, particularly for long-term projects with valuable patient samples. Use of research-use ELISA kits is ubiquitous and judicious use of this computational solution maximizes biomarker reproducibility.
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.