Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30995241›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A computational solution to improve biomarker reproducibility during long-term projects.

Feng Feng, Morgan P Thompson, Beena E Thomas, Elizabeth R Duffy, Jiyoun Kim, Shinichiro Kurosawa, Joseph Y Tashjian, Yibing Wei, Chris Andry, D J Stearns-Kurosawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Feng FengDepartment of Microbiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Morgan P ThompsonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Beena E ThomasDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Elizabeth R DuffyDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jiyoun KimDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Shinichiro KurosawaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Joseph Y TashjianDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Yibing WeiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Chris AndryDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
D J Stearns-KurosawaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2486-923X

Funding

NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansNeoplasmsQuality ControlReagent Kits, DiagnosticReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareTime FactorsBiomarkers, TumorReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID30995241
PMCPMC6469750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.